It Is Not An April Fool’s Day Joke; Federal Court Orders Independence Bridge Class Action May Proceed Forward

A federal judge has issued a significant ruling in the ongoing litigation concerning toll practices on the Independence Bridge in Bay City, allowing the core of the case to proceed and rejecting efforts by the bridge operator to bring the lawsuit to an early end.

The case is being led by Hemlock attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC and Bay City attorney Matthew Hewitt of Garske Hewitt Rodenbo PLC. Together, counsel have sued on behalf of a group of motorists who allege that they were improperly charged tolls and denied the access they were promised following the reopening of the Independence Bridge.

In a decision issued after the close of business on March 31, 2026, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. Critically, the Court ordered the City of Bay City to be dismissed but rejected the bridge operator’s attempt to dismiss the suit against them outright and instead allowed the central claims of breach of contract, implied contract, and unjust enrichment to move forward.

The ruling significantly streamlines the case while preserving its core. The Court dismissed several peripheral legal theories, including a claim based on the rare public trust doctrine. The authorized claims focus squarely on the relationship between the bridge operator and the public. Plaintiffs allege that motorists paid tolls and purchased monthly passes with the understanding that they would receive consistent, reliable access to the bridge, only to encounter repeated closures and restricted hours. The Court held that these allegations are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to support moving forward for breach of express and implied contract, as well as unjust enrichment.

The Court’s analysis emphasizes that the case will turn on what was promised to motorists and what was actually delivered. By allowing these claims to proceed, the Court recognized that the dispute is grounded in concrete transactions between the private operator and the public with payments made in exchange for access that may not have been fully provided.

With the City of Bay City dismissed from the case, the litigation now proceeds solely against the private business operating entity responsible for operating and tolling the bridge (known as Bay City Bridge Partners). This case narrowing forces direct attention upon the conduct of the operator itself.

The case will now move into discovery, where lawyers for the motorists will seek documents, communications, and testimony related to tolling decisions, bridge operations, marketing representations, and the actual availability of access during the relevant time period. The outcome of that process will shape the next phase of the litigation.

The case remains pending before the Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan who sits in Detroit.