United States District Court, D. Columbia.
For Detroit International Bridge Company, a Michigan corporation, Canadian Transit Company, a Canadian special act corporation, Plaintiffs: Amy Lynn Neuhardt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kathleen Simpson Kiernan, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, Washington, DC USA; Hamish P.M. Hume, LEAD ATTORNEY, Heather M. King, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, DC USA.
For Government of Canada, Defendant: Douglas A. Dozeman, Eugene E. Smary, Scott M. Watson, PRO HAC VICE, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP, Grand Rapids, MI USA; Sarah Catherine Lindsey, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP, Southfield, MI USA.
For United States Federal Highway Administration, Victor Mendez, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Federal Highway Administration, Ray Lahood, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Janet A. Napolitano, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, United States of America, Robert J. Papp, Jr., Adm., in his official capcity as Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Defendants: Brian Matthew Collins, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC USA; Peter Christopher Whitfield, LEAD ATTORNEY, BAKER HOSTETLER, Washington, DC USA.
For United States Department of State, John Kerry, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants: Brian Matthew Collins, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC USA.
For Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, Defendant: Scott M. Watson, PRO HAC VICE, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP, Grand Rapids, MI USA.
For Michigan Department of Transportation, Interested Party: Michael James Dittenber, LEAD ATTORNEY, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Lansing, MI USA.
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Request for a Rule 54(b) Judgment on the Dismissal of Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint. See Notification [Dkt. 194]. Plaintiffs request entry of final judgment on Count IV, which the Court dismissed and with respect to which the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Federal Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that such an action would add procedural uncertainty to this complex litigation. For the reasons stated below, the Court " expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay," Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and will grant Plaintiffs' motion.
This case concerns the Ambassador Bridge, which spans the Detroit River between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario and carries more than one-quarter of the total commercial traffic between the United States and Canada. The Bridge is privately owned by the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Canadian Transit Company, which collect toll revenue for Bridge maintenance and profit. However, the Ambassador Bridge is more than eighty years old. Its owners want to use private money to construct a Twin Span immediately adjacent to the existing Bridge to service customers while maintenance work is performed on the Ambassador Bridge. However, a cross-border partnership of government entities has proposed the construction of a new publicly-owned bridge, the NITC/DRIC, which would compete with the Ambassador Bridge and possibly destroy the financial basis for the Twin Span.
In its campaign to build a Twin Span, DIBC has sued in the United States and in Canada. The Court refers the reader to its earlier opinions and will not belabor this case's history here. As relevant to this Order, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Count IV, Dkt. 92, entered judgment in favor of the United States Coast Guard on Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint, and denied Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Count IV, Dkt. 96. See Op. [Dkt. 162]; Order [Dkt. 163]. The Court denied Plaintiffs' ...