STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD. Plaintiff, Case No. 11-1043-CZ Vs JOSEPH GIANNOSA and BETH ANN GIANNOSA, his wife, Defendant. ____________________________/ COLLEEN O’CONNOR WORDEN (P56401) SEIBERT AND DLOSKI Professional Limited Liability Company Attorneys for Plaintiff 19500 Hall Road Suite 101 Clinton Township, Michigan 48038 Telephone: (586) 469-3800 colleenoconnor@msn JOSEPH GIANNOSA and BETH GIANNOSA 55345 Zuhlke Road Chesterfield, MI 48047 ____________________________/ DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION NOW COMES Defendant, Joseph Giannosa and Beth Giannosa, Pro Se, who files this motion pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(1), MCR 2.116 (C)(4), MCR 2.116(C)(5), MCR 2.116(C)(6), MCR 2.116(C)(8) for summary disposition in its favor and against the Plaintiff, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD, and support thereof incorporates the brief attached hereto and Defendants have read the pertinent ordinances and statutes relating to building and zoning codes in Michigan and are either without the jurisdiction of such or are in compliance. 1) Jurisdiction and venue is not proper in this court as Plaintiff’s alleged damages do not meet or exceed $25,000 as required by the Rule 2.111(B)(2). And Plaintiff has provided no evidence of material fact that damages meet or exceed $25,000 and Plaintiff’s pleading did not include allegations that show that the claim is within the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with 2.11(B)(2). Therefore this case should be dismissed per MCR 2.116(C)(1). 2) The court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter per MCR 2.116(C)(4) as by law building codes are commercial in nature and as such cases are to be held by Administrative agencies. 3) The party asserting the claim lacks the legal capacity to sue as this action has not been ratified per FRCP 17(a). 12. Plaintiff Objects to this litigation because it lacks a ratification of commencement FRCP 17(a). 4) Another action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim. Bearing case number 2003-4134-CZ and C1000754A-DM between Defendant and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed incorrect information on the Summons and Complaint and has improperly submitted incorrect information as the SCAO Form says there is no longer any pending action while the Complaint says “There is another civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction of occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, being Case No. 2003-4134-CZ which was the case was closed in 2004. And C1000754A-DM was dismissed without prejudice.” 5) The opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not proven any damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the court take nothing of Plaintiffs Complaint by virtue and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. Dated: April 4th, 2011 Joseph Gianossa
Posted on: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:48:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015