10.  There are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class  that predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members.  The questions of law or fact common to all members of the class are: they are all  retirees that retired on or after July 1, 1986 from the City of Hamtramck and former  members and their eligible family members of the police or firefighter collective  bargaining units that had contractually guaranteed retiree health care insurance at a  specific level from the time of retirement for the rest of the retirees’ and their eligible  family members’ lives.   11.  The claims of the named Plaintiffs are for the entire class and are  therefore typical of the claims of the class.  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 4 of 22    Pg ID 4 5   12.  Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the members of the proposed class  and there is no reason to doubt that they will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the class.    13.  The maintenance of this action as a class action is superior to other  available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of  justice and in achieving a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy in this  matter because the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members  of the class would create a risk of (1) inconsistent or varying adjudications with  respect to individual members of the class that would confront the Defendant with  incompatible standards of conduct and (2) adjudications with respect to individual  members of the class that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests  of other members of the class not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair  or impede their ability to protect their interest because, in view of the complexity of  the issues and the expense of litigation, the separate claims of the individual class  members are insufficient in amount to support the prosecution of separate actions  because the amount recoverable for each individual member would be insufficient  to cover the costs of litigation.   14.  Since the late 1980’s all agreements between the collective bargaining  representatives of the City of Hamtramck police officers (Hamtramck Fraternal  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 5 of 22    Pg ID 5 6  Order of Police, Labor Council and the Hamtramck Ranking Officer Association)  and the City of Hamtramck firefighters (Local 750, International Association of  Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Hamtramck Firefighters Association) and the City of  Hamtramck have included provisions for vested retiree healthcare benefits.   15.  Those benefits for those members of the collective bargaining units  have uniformly provided that “[t]he City shall pay in full for the cost of medical,  hospital, and surgical insurance (as more fully described in [the section stating the  particular health care benefit]) for employees and eligible members of employees’  families who retire on or after July 1, 1986 until that retired employee attains the age  of sixty-five (65) or is eligible for medicare or medicaid.”  This provision creates a  contractually protected vested retiree benefit.   16.  The benefit that is provided is also stated with specificity; “[t]he City  shall provide continuous medical, hospital and surgical insurance coverage  equivalent to or better than Michigan Blue Cross and Michigan Blue Shield MVFC- 2 coverage with a Master Medical Plan supplemented together with the prescription  drug rider.”   17.  Upon retirement, employees are given a document from the City of  Hamtramck that states that their health care benefits continue and the “City’s health  care coverage will remain primary until you reach of the age of 65.”  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 6 of 22    Pg ID 6 7   18.  After the retiree reaches the age of 65, the benefits are coordinated with  Medicare and the benefits are continued at a similar level. The various contracts  provide that the retirees, “shall be eligible and shall provide and pay the full cost of  supplemental insurance to Medicare, which is equivalent to or superior to that  offered by and through Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan.”    19.  The vested benefits to which a member of the collective bargaining unit  is entitled is established by the collective bargaining agreement at time of his or her  retirement. Consistent with the applicable labor laws, the respective collective  bargaining representatives do not represent members of the collective bargaining  unit once they retire. Accordingly, at the time of retirement, the collective bargaining  rights become individual contractual rights of the retiree for which the collective  bargaining representatives do not have the right to negotiate on behalf of the retirees.   20.  Based on the guarantees of these vested benefits, the individual  members financially plan for their retirement and make irrevocable decisions  regarding their retirement.   21.  In order to obtain these retirement benefits, the collective bargaining  unit forego other, more immediate, wages and benefits in exchange for the long-term  security.   22.  From the late 1980’s to 2013, the City of Hamtramck has implemented  changes to the retiree health care. These changes were not challenged because the  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 7 of 22    Pg ID 7 8  retirees determined that they were equivalent or better than the plan referenced in  the contracts or were too insignificant to warrant substantial litigation.   23.  On or about July 1, 2013, Defendant Cathy Square was appointed by  Michigan Governor Rick Snyder as the Emergency Manager of the City of  Hamtramck. She is given her authority pursuant to Local Stability and Choice Act  (Public Act 436 of 2012) (hereafter “PA 436”).   24.  The Michigan Legislature had passed and Governor Snyder signed a  nearly identical law (“PA 4”) that was repealed by the citizens of Michigan via  referendum in November 2012. Undeterred by the stated desires of the electorate, in  December 2012, Governor Snyder signed PA 436 into law, which was nearly  identical to PA 4. However, PA 436 contained a relatively small spending provision,  which inoculated the law from another referendum.    25.  On or about January 29, 2014, Defendant Square issued Order S-008,  which terminated the contractual provisions of various collective bargaining  agreements that provide for retiree health care. In the Order, she relied on section  12(K) of PA 436 to take this action.   26.  Defendant Square’s claim of authority from section 12(K) of PA 436  was misplaced. Section 12(K) of PA 436 provides that an Emergency Manager may  only terminate a provision of an existing collective bargaining agreement once he or  she has meet and conferred “with the appropriate bargaining representative.”  The  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 8 of 22    Pg ID 8 9  Emergency Manager must determine from those meetings that “a prompt and  satisfactory resolution is unlikely to be obtained.”   27.  Allegedly, Defendant Square met with representatives from the  respective police and fire unions. As these unions do not have the statutory or legal  authority to represent retirees, they are not the representatives or agents of the  retirees. The only bargaining representative of the retirees is the individual retirees  or someone to whom they have granted authority to represent them. Accordingly,  Defendant Square did not satisfy the statutory requirement that she meet and confer  with the appropriate bargaining representative of Plaintiffs.   28.  Defendant Square made no attempt to meet with Plaintiffs prior to  issuing Order S-008.   29.  Moreover, the authority to alter collective bargaining agreements only  extends to “existing collective bargaining agreements” under Section 12(k) of PA  436. Therefore, she only has the statutory authority to terminate or modify collective  bargaining agreements that are currently in force. At most, this would only allow her  to modify or terminate the retiree health care provisions of the collective bargaining  agreements that where in force at the time. Instead, she modified every collective  bargaining agreement that had ever existed or at least existed since the late 1980’s  when she modified and terminated the vested retiree benefits for all retirees,  regardless of what collective bargaining agreement provided the vested right to  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 9 of 22    Pg ID 9 10  retiree health care. Moreover, those that had already retired under the current  collective bargaining agreement, have an individual contract right to vested  retirement health care, not a collective bargaining agreement subject to termination  or modification under PA 436.   30.  On or about March 1, 2014, Defendant Square implemented, without  the consent of Plaintiffs, a dramatic change to their health insurance benefits. In  summary of the material changes, the retirees would now be subject to $2,000 for  single coverage deductibles and $4,000 for two person or family coverage  deductible. Also, the prescription coverage for brand name drugs was increased by  $30 per prescription. Other out-of-pocket expenses were also increased. Coverage  for some medical services was eliminated altogether. Previously, the City annually  contributed to a Health Savings Account or Health Reimbursement Account to cover  some or all of the out-of-pocket expenses of previous health care plans. These  contributions were eliminated. This alone creates an increase of up to $4,000 in out- of-pocket expenses.   31.  On or about January 10, 2014, the Hamtramck Police and Fire Retiree  Association filed a Complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging breach of  contract. The case number is 14-000316-CZ.   32.  The effect of these changes has been thousands of dollars in increased  out-of-pocket costs to retirees, where many are on a fixed income and did not include  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 10 of 22    Pg ID 10 11  such costs in their retirement planning. Many retirees are forced to make difficult  and irrevocable decisions between forgoing the medical treatment that they or their  family members may need and maintaining the basic necessities of life.  33.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth.   34.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendants and its agents and employees  were individuals acting under color of State law.   35.  At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members  were “citizen(s) of the United States or other person(s) within the jurisdiction”  entitled to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   36.  The Constitution of the United States provides that “[n]o State  shall…pass any…law impairing the obligation of contracts.” U.S. Const. Article I,  Sec. 10, Cl. 1.   37.  The rights and protections of the Contracts Clause are fully applicable  to state action. U.S. Const. Amendment XIV.   38.  The agreements to provide vested retiree health care benefits create  enforceable contract rights within the meaning of the Contracts Clause.  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 11 of 22    Pg ID 11 12   39.  Under the retiree health care provisions of the various collective  bargaining agreements, Defendant City of Hamtramck is contractually obligated to  provide health insurance at a specific level of coverage and no lower.   40.  Defendant violated the Contract Clause of the United States  Constitution when it took actions impairing its contractual obligations to vested  retirees by unilaterally increasing the contribution rates for premiums, the co- payments and deductibles, and other modifications to the health care plan to which  it was contractually bound.   41.  Acting under color of state statute, ordinance, custom and regulation,  including the Defendant City of Hamtramck’s policy or custom, Defendant Square  and Defendant City of Hamtramck have caused the deprivation of rights, privileges  or immunities secured by the Contracts Clause.   42 U.S.C. § 1983 – VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS   CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION   42 U.S.C. § 1983 – VIOLATION OF THE PROCEDURAL DUE  PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION   42 U.S.C. § 1983 – VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTS   CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION   42.  Defendants’ unilateral increase and modification of contribution rates,  co-payments and deductibles diminish the benefit coverage and the contracts with  these retirees and have no legitimate public purpose and/or constitute an abuse of  power.   43.  The actions at issue substantially impair the provisions in Plaintiffs’  contractual agreements.  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 12 of 22    Pg ID 12 13   44.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs  sustained and will continue to sustain injury and damages, including but not limited,  to the deprivation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: (a) certification of this action  as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, (b) a declaration that Defendant’s actions  are unconstitutional, (c) permanent injunctive relief reinstating benefits consistent  with Defendants’ contractual obligations and preventing further irreparable  constitutional injury and breaches of the parties agreements, (d) entry of judgment  in Plaintiffs’ favor in whatever amount Plaintiffs may be found to be entitled, plus  interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and (e) any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs  are found to be entitled.  45.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth.   46.  The Constitution of the United States provides that no person “shall be  deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”   U.S. Const.  Amendment V.   47.  The rights and protections of the Fifth Amendment are fully applicable  to state action. U.S. Const. Amendment XIV.  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 13 of 22    Pg ID 13 14   48.  Plaintiffs have a vested contractual and constitutionally protected  property interest in Defendant’s compliance with its contractual obligations to  continue providing the same retiree contribution rate, co-payments, deductible and  benefits as provided in the various collective bargaining agreements and to have  Defendants refrain from unilaterally altering and modifying retirees’ contribution  rates, deductibles, benefits and financial obligations as provided in the various  collective bargaining agreements.   49.  Defendants do not have the right to unilaterally modify the contractual  obligations without due process of law.   50.  Defendant substantially diminished Plaintiffs’ vested contractual and  constitutionally protected interests without notice and without an opportunity to be  heard before the deprivation took place, thus, causing a forfeiture of property without  due process in violation of the due process clause.   51.  Plaintiffs did not waive their right to adequate notice or the reasonable  opportunity to be heard before being deprived of their vested contractual and  constitutionally protected interest.   52.  Defendant’s interest to deprive Plaintiffs without first providing notice  and a reasonable opportunity to be heard are non-existent or minimal.  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 14 of 22    Pg ID 14 15   53.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs  sustained and will sustain injury and damages, including but not limited, to the  deprivation of their rights under the U. S. Constitution.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: (a) certification of this action  as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, (b) a declaration that Defendants’ actions  are unconstitutional, (c) permanent injunctive relief reinstating benefits consistent  with Defendants’ contractual obligations and preventing further irreparable  constitutional injury and breaches of the parties agreements, (d) entry of judgment  in Plaintiffs’ favor in whatever amount Plaintiffs may be found to be entitled, plus  interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and (e) any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs  are found to be entitled.  54.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth.   55.  The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States  Constitution, which applies to Michigan through the Fourteenth Amendment,  provides that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just  compensation.”  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 15 of 22    Pg ID 15 16   56.  The rights of the Plaintiffs to receive contractually guaranteed vested  retiree health insurance at a specific level constitutes private property within the  meaning of the Takings Clause.   57.  Defendants, acting under color of state law, have taken the private  property of Plaintiffs without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause.   58.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: (a) certification of this  action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, (b) a declaration that Defendants’  actions are unconstitutional, (c) permanent injunctive relief reinstating benefits  consistent with Defendants’ contractual obligations and preventing further  irreparable constitutional injury and breaches of the parties agreements, (d) entry of  judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in whatever amount Plaintiffs may be found to be  entitled, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and (e) any and all other relief to  which Plaintiffs are found to be entitled.  59.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth.   60.  Federal laws made pursuant to authority granted by express  Constitutional authority are “the supreme law of the land” pursuant to the Supremacy  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 16 of 22    Pg ID 16 17  Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl 2. Any conflicting  state law is preempted.    61.  The Bankruptcy Clause of the United States Constitution grants  Congress the authority to enact “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies  throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl 2. Pursuant to this authority,  Congress has enacted Title 11 of the United States Code.   62.  The federal Bankruptcy Code establishes a national, uniform system for  the adjustment of municipal debts. 11 U.S.C. §903(1) provides; “a State law  prescribing a method of composition of indebtedness of such municipality may not  bind any creditor that does not consent to such composition.”   63.  The Plaintiffs in this action did not consent to a reduction in their vested  retiree health care benefits.    64.  The Plaintiffs are creditors of the City of Hamtramck.   65.  The actions taken by Defendants reducing the contractually protected  retiree health care benefits, allegedly pursuant to the authority granted by PA 436, is  an attempt to prescribe a method of the composition of the indebtedness of the City  of Hamtramck without the consent of Plaintiffs.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request: (a) certification of this action  as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, (b) a declaration that Defendants’ actions  are unconstitutional, (c) permanent injunctive relief reinstating benefits consistent  4:14-cv-14112-LVP-MJH   Doc # 1   Filed 10/24/14   Pg 17 of 22    Pg ID 17 18  with Defendants’ contractual obligations and preventing further irreparable  constitutional injury and breaches of the parties agreements, (d) entry of judgment  in Plaintiffs’ favor in whatever amount Plaintiffs may be found to be entitled, plus  interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, and (e) any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs  are found to be entitled.  Respectfully submitted,  9.  This action is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other  persons similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a)  and 23(b)(1)(A) and (B)(2) and (3), whose joinder in this action is impracticable  because the class is so numerous. Based on information and belief, there are over  100 members of the class.   VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C. § 903, THE BANKRUPTCY   CLAUSE AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE  