Case: Guertin v. State of Michigan
5:16-cv-12412 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Filed Date: June 27, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is one of many filed in response to the 2014 Flint water crisis, which occurred when Flint began to draw corrosive water from the Flint River to save money, exposing thousands to lead and other toxins.
On June 27, 2016, a resident of Flint who drank and bathed in lead-contaminated water filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of herself and her minor child. (The complaint named, but did not describe, a second individual plaintiff who was also a resident of Flint exposed to unsafe water.) The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sued the City of Flint, the State of Michigan, and various government officials and private contractors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. They sought general, compensatory and punitive damages, an order declaring the defendants’ conduct unconstitutional, equitable relief to remediate the harm they had suffered, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to provide safe drinking water and their provision of deliberate misinformation about the safety of the drinking water violated their due process and common law rights.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants knew the water was contaminated yet continued to publicly state the water was safe. By doing so, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants showed deliberate indifference to their bodily integrity and property rights, breached their contract to provide safe water, breached the implied warranty that the water they sold was safe, and interfered with the plaintiffs’ ability to enjoy their home, which constituted a nuisance. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ failure to adequately test the water was negligent, and the failure to provide safe drinking water was grossly negligent.
The case was assigned to Judge Judith E. Levy. On October 27, 2016, the defendants moved to change venue, arguing that the overwhelming extent of adverse media coverage would make a fair and impartial jury nearly impossible in the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants requested a venue change to an out of state metropolitan venue or the Northern Division of the Western District of Michigan, which they claimed was the least prejudicial venue in Michigan.
In the following weeks, all defendants moved to dismiss the action and argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Some defendants who were government officials sued in their official capacities raised immunity defenses and argued that the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity did not apply to the sale of water.
On January 23, 2017, the court denied the motion to change venue. The court noted that plaintiffs can ordinarily choose the venue, the majority of the defendants lived nearby, and most of the evidence was in the area. It determined that a venue change so far before trial would be premature. 2017 WL 6390962.
On June 5, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss. Judge Levy dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, nuisance, trespass, gross negligence, professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims. She also dismissed the plaintiff’s due process claims that related to property loss and state-created danger, as well as the plaintiffs’ bodily integrity claims as to the government defendants and officials acting within their official capacities. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim. But the plaintiffs’ bodily integrity claims against officials acting in their individual capacities survived because the court determined the alleged conduct of the governmental defendants was so egregious as to shock the conscience and violate the plaintiffs’ clearly established fundamental right to bodily integrity; the court accordingly denied the defendants’ claims to qualified immunity on this count. The plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claims against the contractors also survived. 2017 WL 2418007.
Meanwhile, Judge Levy indicated that she planned to consolidate all of the class action cases arising from the Flint water crisis. In this case, the plaintiffs moved for leave to add class allegations and to consolidate with the other class actions on June 23, 2017.
On July 27, 2017, Judge Levy consolidated eight class actions (16-cv-10796, 16-cv-11173, 16-cv-11247, 16-cv-12875, 16-cv-14498, 17-cv-10343, 17-cv-10360, and 17-cv-10799) with Waid v. Snyder (later captioned In re Flint Water Cases). But she declined to consolidate this case, likely because it was not originally filed as a class action.
Litigation also continued over the court’s decision on the motions to dismiss. Various government officials appealed the district court’s June 5, 2017 decision denying them qualified immunity, and district court proceedings were stayed on October 30, 2017 while the appeals proceeded. 2017 WL 4875618. The Sixth Circuit (Judges Griffin and White, with Judge McKeague dissenting in part) largely affirmed the district court on January 4, 2019. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for harm to bodily integrity against officials who were not entitled to qualified immunity, although it dismissed the claims against other officials against whom the plaintiffs had alleged only negligence. The Sixth Circuit also determined that Flint was not an “arm of the state,” which could have conferred additional immunity on some officials, despite the city being run by an emergency manager. 912 F.3d 907. The appellate court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. 912 F.3d 907.
The case returned to the district court, but on August 14, 2019, the City of Flint filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. The city challenged the Sixth Circuit's decision to expand the right to bodily integrity to protection from exposure to environmental toxins. The city also requested review of whether it was plausible that the decisions of government officials acting with the approval of regulatory enforcers and the advice of experts can be found to be conscience-shocking. For the claim against the city defendants to pass the Twombly plausibility standard, the plaintiffs must have shown how the government’s discretionary conduct that deprived them of a constitutionally protected liberty interest was constitutionally repugnant. To do this, the plaintiffs must have alleged conduct that was "conscience shocking". Additionally, the city asked the Supreme Court to decide if there was a clearly established constitutional right. The city argued that even if a bodily integrity violation occurred, it was not clearly established. Finally, the city challenged the ruling that a municipality under complete control of the state is not an "arm of the state" and consequently not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. On January 21, 2020, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and declined to hear the case. Supreme Court Case No. 19-205.
After the denial of certiorari, the parties held status conferences at the district court level from March 2020 through January 2022. On March 9, 2022, the court entered a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, implementing a partial settlement for all cases related to the Flint water crisis, including Guertin and others which had not been filed as class actions. For details of the settlement, see In re Flint Water Cases in the Clearinghouse.
On December 21, 2022, Judge Levy consolidated all 90 pending Flint water crisis-related civil cases and captioned them In re Flint Water Cases for pre-trial purposes and ordered that all further filings be docketed on the lead docket, but the docket in this case remained open. The case is ongoing, pending In re Flint Water Cases.
Summary Authors
Nora Baty (11/13/2019)
Sabrina Glavota (5/22/2020)
Kady Matsuzaki (3/4/2023)
Clara Swetnam-Burland (5/2/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4513634/parties/guertin-v-state-of-michigan/
Barbieri, Charles E. (Michigan)
Berg, Frederick A. (Michigan)
Berger, Jay M. (Michigan)
Bettenhausen, Margaret A. (Michigan)
Bolton, Jordan S. (Michigan)
Barbieri, Charles E. (Michigan)
Bettenhausen, Margaret A. (Michigan)
Cafferty, Michael S. (Michigan)
Campbell, James M. (Massachusetts)
Clare, Christopher B. (District of Columbia)
Collins, Allison M. (Michigan)
Gilliam, Courtney B. (Michigan)
Grashoff, Philip A Jr. (Michigan)
Grunert, John A.K. (Massachusetts)
MARY CHARTIER-MITTENDORF, Mary (Michigan)
Morgan, Thaddeus E. (Michigan)
Pattwell, Michael J. (Michigan)
Perkins, Todd Russell (Michigan)
Rusek, Alexander S. (Michigan)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4513634/guertin-v-state-of-michigan/
Last updated Sept. 23, 2026, 5:29 a.m.
Docket for: Guertin v. State of Michigan
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 27, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two residents of Flint who drank and bathed in contaminated water during the Flint water crisis.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
City
City of Flint
Private Entity/Person
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.
Veolia North America, LLC
State
State of Michigan
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 5:16-cv-12412
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 17-01698
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 17-01699
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 17-01745
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 17-01752
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 17-01769
Supreme Court of the United States 18A1308
Supreme Court of the United States 19-205
Supreme Court of the United States 19-350
Supreme Court of the United States 19A111
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Case Summary of Guertin v. State of Michigan, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17188/ (last updated 5/2/2026).