The opinion of the court was delivered by: WADDY
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following court-provided text does not appear at this cite in 440 F. Supp.]
This case came on before the Court on June 29, 1977, for a hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment; and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of said motions, the various memoranda of points and authorities in support thereof and in opposition thereto, the pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits, including the administrative record developed pursuant to consideration by the Comptroller of the Currency of the application filed by Michigan National Bank - Grand Traverse for permission to establish a branch bank in Benzonia, Benzie County, Michigan, and the entire record herein, and it appearing to the Court therefrom that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion filed herein this same date, it is by the Court this 27th day of July, 1977,
(1) that plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and for summary judgment be, and the same hereby are, denied; and
(2) that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, denied; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that defendant's alternative motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, granted, and that judgment herein be entered against plaintiff and in favor of defendant.
Joseph C. Waddy United States District Judge
On July 22, 1976, Michigan National Bank -- Grand Traverse, a national banking association (Applicant), filed an application with the Office of the defendant Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller), requesting permission to establish a branch in the Village of Benzonia, Benzie County, Michigan.
Shortly thereafter plaintiff filed a protest and requested a public hearing. The hearing was held November 16, 1976.
At the hearing, plaintiff introduced evidence designed to show: (1) that Applicant, an affiliate of Michigan National Corporation, a bank holding company, was de facto a branch of another affiliate bank, Michigan National Bank -- Lansing which intended to operate the bank; (2) that Michigan law permits the establishment of a branch bank only within 25 miles of the "parent" bank; (3) that Applicant was not the "parent" bank; (4) that Michigan National Bank -- Lansing was the "parent" bank; (5) that Michigan National Bank -- Lansing was more than 25 miles from the village in which the branch was to be located and therefore, the establishment of the proposed branch would violate Michigan law. Plaintiff also proffered other evidence designed to show "unitary operation" in support of its de facto theory, and its claim that Applicant was a member of an illegal statewide branch banking network operated by Michigan National Corporation under the guise of a bank holding company system. This evidence was held to be irrelevant and immaterial.
On or about February 28, 1977, the defendant Comptroller approved Applicant's application. Plaintiff brought this action on March 18, 1977, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from that order of approval.
With its complaint plaintiff filed motions for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied and a hearing on the merits was ordered advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (a) (2). Thereupon defendant moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and plaintiff moved ...