Whether the Committee was entitled to mandamus; Standing; Authority to reject the petition for a referendum; Validity of appropriations ordinance; Compliance with charter notice requirements; Whether the Ordinance violated agreements with the Township; Jurisdiction over the cross-appeal; Marshall Area Economic Development Alliance (MAEDA); Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC); Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF); MGM Grand Detroit v Community Coalition for Empowerment, Inc

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff-Committee’s claims. It correctly held “that the Committee was not entitled to mandamus relief because of the existence of an alternative adequate remedy (namely, an appeal of the Marshall City Council’s final decision on certification) and the lack of a clear, legal right.” It also correctly held “that the ordinance at issue complied with the Marshall City charter.” It dismissed the MEDC’s and the MSF’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case was about “(1) when a party is entitled to mandamus and (2) interpretation of the city of Marshall’s charter.” The case started with efforts by defendant-appellee, the city of Marshall (the City), to rezone a parcel of real estate. It “rezoned the property through an ordinance that also included appropriations.” Plaintiffs “formed the Committee and, with others, circulated a petition for a ballot referendum on the City’s decision.” The City Clerk, defendant-Eubank, rejected it. “The Committee and the petitioners sued seeking a writ of mandamus.” Numerous other stakeholders sought to intervene; only MAEDA succeeded. The Committee appealed the trial court’s order dismissing its claims. It argued “that the trial court erred in several ways by rejecting its claims that the City violated the law when it rezoned the property.” The court held, among other things, that the “trial court correctly concluded that the Committee’s mandamus claim failed for at least two reasons: first, an adequate alternative remedy existed (judicial review as provided in Section 5.04 of the Marshall Charter), and second, the Committee did not have a legal right to a ballot referendum on an ordinance containing appropriations.” The court held that to “the extent that the trial court in this case correctly determined that Ordinance 2023-08 was not subject to the power of referendum under the Marshall Charter, it did not err when it relied on the decision in MGM Grand Detroit to conclude that it could not order Eubank to certify a petition for referendum that was plainly contrary to the Marshall Charter without regard to whether Eubank should have certified the sufficiency of the petition in the first place.” The trial court also correctly held “that the mandamus claim failed because of the existence of another adequate legal remedy, namely, the ability to challenge the city council’s final decision on certification in court.”