STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB

EAST DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, a

Michigan general powers school district, the EAST
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION and CRAIG BROZOWSKI, in both his
individual and official capacities,
Case No.: 2016-2335-AW
Hon. Joseph Toia
Plaintiffs,
v
GARY JENSEN, in both his individual and official
capacities,
Defendant.

George P. Butler III (P43692)

Dickinson Wright PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
500 Woodward Ave., Ste. 4000
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 223-3500
gbutler@dickinsonwright.com

Jonathan C. Myers (P66972)

Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
27777 Franklin Rd., Ste. 2500
Southfield, MI 48034
(248) 351-3000

ORDER PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1.

Notwithstanding any apparent and/or actual authority given to Defendant under

MCL 380.1280c and/or by appointment and/or the Agreement for Chief Executive Officer
Services between Defendant and the State School Reform/Redesign Office in the Department of
Technology, Management and Budget, any modifications, amendments, assignments thereto or
thereof notwithstanding, and/or any order or directive to the contrary by other than this Court,
Defendant shall, at no expense to Plaintiffs whatsoever and without appropriation by him or
anyone on his behalf of state aid or other funds attributable or available to the East Detroit Public

Schools, limit such apparent and/or actual and/or contractual authority to consulting with the
Superintendent hired by the East Detroit Public Schools Board of Education to assist said
Superintendent with the implementation of the redesign plans previously approved by the State
Superintendent of Public Education or the State School Reform/Redesign Officer for East Detroit
High School, Kelly Middle School, Bellview Elementary School and Pleastantview Elementary
School. Said limitation includes the actual or apparent authority to terminate, modify or enter
into new contracts.
2.

While this Order remains in effect the Defendant and the aforementioned

Superintendent shall cooperate with each other with respect to this Order.
3.

In the event that Defendant and said Superintendent reach an impasse regarding

any issue contained in this Order, either party shall have the right, with proper notice to the other,
to petition this Court for a resolution of said issue.
4.

The parties agree that this Order does not constitute an intervention agreement

and is without wavier of a partys claims or defenses or right to a trial by jury.

5.

This Order shall remain in effect until further order of this Court.

6.

This matter is held in abeyance pending final resolution of Court of Claims Case

No. 16-000123 except with respect to proceedings pursuant to paragraph 3 above.

_______________________

___________________________________

DATE
Honorable __________________________