SKATEMORE, INC., a Michigan corporation dba Roll Haven Skating Center; SLIM’S REC, INC., a Michigan corporation dba Spartan West Bowling Center/Beamers Restaurant; MR. K ENTERPRISES, INC., a Michigan corporation dba Royal Scot Golf & Bowl; M.B. AND D. LLC, a Michigan limited liability company dba Fremont Lanes; R2M, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company dba Spectrum Lanes & Woody’s Press Box v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan; ROBERT GORDON, in his official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, a Michigan Administrative Agency - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jul 19, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Stephen P. Kallman, KALLMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Daniel J. Ping, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Stephen P. Kallman, David A. Kallman, KALLMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Daniel J. Ping, Darrin F. Fowler, Kyla Barranco, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Judge(s): CLAY, GRIFFIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Skatemore, Inc., Slim’s Rec, Inc., Mr. K Enterprises, Inc., M.B. and D. LLC, and R2M, LLC, operators of bowling alleys and roller-skating rinks in Michigan, sued Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, former Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”) Director Robert Gordon, and the MDHHS alleging that various orders limiting the use of Plaintiffs’ properties early in the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article X of the Michigan Constitution. The district court found that Defendants were entitled to immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and accordingly dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district court also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. We AFFIRM for the reasons set forth below.