TRAVERSE CITY -- Meijer Inc. will turn to the Michigan Supreme Court in an effort to fend off lawsuits from five Acme Township officials after a state appeals court rejected a similar request from the Grand Rapids-based retailer.
A three-judge panel in Grand Rapids recently declined to overturn Grand Traverse County Judge Philip E. Rodgers' ruling that allowed the Acme Township officials to sue Meijer for harassment.
The appellate judges also lifted a stay it earlier granted that froze all activity in the lawsuit. Meijer attorneys want to block the Acme officials' lawyers from taking sworn testimorny from top Meijer officials, including company President Mark Murray and board Co-Chair Hank Meijer, about the retailer's illegally funded efforts from 2005-07 to undermine Acme Township government during a zoming dispute.
Meijer attorney James Brady filed a new motion with the Supreme Court that asked justices for a stay while the top court considers Meijer's emergency appeal.
"We feel the reasons we expressed with the Court of Appeals have value and we believe Judge Rodgers made a mistake in denying our motion to set this matter aside," Brady said.
Last November, the targeted Acme officials agreed to release Meijer and its attorneys from future litigation to settle the harassment lawsuit. But that agreement came before Meijer publicly acknowledged it illegally spent more than $100,000 to influence township elections.
Rodgers ruled the releases were obtained under "extraordinary" circumstances, and opened the door for the Acme officials to sue.
The lawsuit filed by Acme Township Planning Commissioner Robert Carstens charges that Meijer, the Village and its former attorneys intentionally harmed township officials through a frivolous 2005 lawsuit, illegal campaign activity and secret financial support of a citizens group that harassed township officials.
Planning Commissioner Clare David and township Trustees Erick Takayama, Frank Zarafonitis and Ron Hardin also plan to join the suit.
Carstens' attorney Mike Dettmer said he was pleased by the appeals court's unanimous decision.
"Hopefully, we can convince the Supreme Court to follow this same road map," Dettmer said. "I try to stay out of the Supreme Court if I can and Meijer wants to be there, and that scares me a little."
The appeals court ruled Meijer "failed to persuade the court of the need for emergency appellate review," in its two-sentence written decision.
"The court was specifically saying the issues were not ripe for their consideration and to let the record be developed and the depositions taken," Dettmer said.
Dettmer, of Traverse City, said he wants to take depositions from Murray and Meijer. Both made public statements indicating they were unaware of Meijer's illegal efforts, but neither have had to do so under oath.
Brady cited Dettmer's statements regarding planned depositions of Murray and Meijer in court filings as one reason the court should grant the stay and emergency appeal.
The Supreme Court will consider Meijer's request on Sept. 16.
Print this story
E-mail this story
