This case stems from Michigan's delinquent tax foreclosure scheme under the Michigan General Property Tax Act. Plaintiffs, who lost their properties through this process, sued Wayne County, the City of Taylor, and various other parties, alleging a plan to deprive them of their properties without just compensation. The procedural history was complicated by a clerical error on the summons, which listed the Wayne County Treasurer instead of the County, and by inconsistent filings from the County's attorneys who sometimes appeared for the Treasurer and sometimes for the County. The Treasurer argued he was the proper defendant and entitled to sovereign immunity because his foreclosure actions were mandated by state law. The district court initially treated the County as the defendant but later substituted the Treasurer, leading to this appeal focused solely on the question of sovereign immunity and the proper party.
The Sixth Circuit began by determining the threshold question of who the plaintiffs actually sued. The court looked to the operative complaint, which clearly listed 'Wayne County' as the defendant in both the caption and the substantive allegations. The court emphasized that plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint and can choose whom to sue. Although a summons contained a clerical error listing the Treasurer, the court held that a summons does not define the parties to a case; the complaint does. The court noted that the County had previously conceded it was the defendant in its objections to a magistrate judge's report and had failed to challenge service of process. The court rejected the Treasurer's argument that the summons trumped the complaint, calling the attempt to substitute the Treasurer 'procedural gamesmanship.' Having established that Wayne County is the defendant, the court applied the reasoning from its prior decision in Bowles v. Sabree. Under Bowles, a county is not entitled to sovereign immunity in tax foreclosure cases because it 'elected' to conduct foreclosures, meaning its participation was voluntary rather than mandated by state law. In contrast, a county treasurer acting under a state mandate is an arm of the state and enjoys immunity. Since the plaintiffs sued the County, and the County acted voluntarily, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the claims. The court declined to address the state-law inverse condemnation claim or the City of Taylor's liability, as those issues were outside the scope of its pendent appellate jurisdiction.
The decision clarifies that in Michigan tax foreclosure cases, plaintiffs must sue the county itself to avoid Eleventh Amendment barriers, as counties are not protected by sovereign immunity when they voluntarily elect to foreclose. The ruling reinforces that clerical errors in summonses do not override the clear intent of the complaint regarding the named defendant. The case is remanded to the district court to proceed against Wayne County on the remaining federal due process and state-law inverse condemnation claims, with the Treasurer's immunity defense effectively removed from the equation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download