Alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA); Failure to state a claim; Injunctive relief; “Ongoing violation”; CBACS v Algonac Cmty Sch; Request for the appointment of a special master; Types of relief available under the OMA; Motion to disqualify the trial court judge; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(b); The appearance of impropriety standard in Canon 2 of the MI Code of Judicial Conduct; Canon 7; Effect of campaign contributions to City Council candidate committees; State Bar of MI Ethics Opinions JI-145 & JI-30; Adair v State Dep’t of Educ

The court held that “plaintiff failed to state a viable claim for injunctive relief under the OMA” and that the trial court judge and the Chief Judge “both correctly concluded that there is no basis for” disqualifying the trial court judge. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant-City in this case alleging OMA violations. Plaintiff “sought injunctive relief and an appointment of a master to monitor the City’s compliance under the OMA[.]” The court found that the trial court correctly determined plaintiff did not state a viable claim for injunctive relief given that he did not allege “any facts to suggest that an ongoing violation or real and imminent danger of irreparable injury occurred. Plaintiff’s complaint only alleges violations of the OMA on the basis of the single closed session at the [10/16/23] City Council meeting, claiming the City failed to properly identify the purpose for the closed session during the meeting and in writing in the meeting minutes. Beyond this, [he] does not allege facts to support any assertion that any OMA violations occurred at any other meeting before or after it. The error at hand was also rectified in the meeting minutes.” His allegation that the alleged violations were part of the City’s “‘practices of conducting government business in secrecy’” was not supported “by any facts to indicate the City engages in any practice of conducting business in secrecy. These allegations alone are not enough to plead a pattern of ongoing violations to state a claim for injunctive relief.” The court also noted that the OMA “makes no mention of appointment of a special master” and that he abandoned his request for one. As to his motion for disqualification, “there was neither a serious risk of actual bias impacting due process rights, nor the appearance of impropriety under MCR 2.003.” As to the latter, he relied on Canon 7 and cited “the trial judge’s nominal campaign contributions to two City Council candidate committees, and attendance at a fundraiser for one of the then-candidates[.]” The court found that Canon 7 did not support his argument and that the judge’s “actions, without more, do not amount to improper conduct.”