Affiliations

• American Council of Life Insurers v. Watters

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008-02-29 · cited 3×

  This case concerned Michigan administrative rules that barred insurers from issuing policies containing discretionary clauses for employee benefit plans subject to ERISA, with the rules applying to both new and amended policies. Trade associations representing insurers sued the state insurance commissioner seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the rules against ERISA-funded policies, arguing federal preemption. The court granted summary judgment to the commissioner, holding that the rules were not preempted. The core reasoning was that ERISA's saving clause preserves state laws that regulate insurance, and these rules fell within that protection by affecting the standard of judicial review without conflicting with ERISA's structure or purposes, consistent with precedents such as Rush Prudential and Firestone.

  business & regulatoryfederal powerlabor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,208 words)

• Jasman v. DTG Operations, Inc.

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008-02-13 · cited 10×

  This case arose from a 2006 motor vehicle collision in which defendant Charles Helt, driving a car rented from DTG Operations (Dollar Rental), struck plaintiff Catherine Jasman, causing her alleged injuries; Jasman and her husband sued both Helt and Dollar Rental. Plaintiffs alleged Dollar Rental's liability under Michigan's Motor Vehicle Civil Liability Act (MCL 257.401) based on ownership and permission to drive, plus respondeat superior on the theory that Helt was Dollar Rental's employee at the time. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing all claims against Dollar Rental with prejudice. It reasoned that the short-term rental agreement shifted primary liability to the renter per the statute and that no evidence supported an employment relationship, as Helt's affidavit stated he had never worked for the company and plaintiffs offered nothing to rebut it or justify further discovery.

  torts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,462 words)

• Boltenko v. United States Department of Homeland Security

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008-02-12

  This case involves plaintiffs Alexander and Tatiana Boltenko whose naturalization applications were pending with USCIS beyond the 120-day statutory period after their examinations, prompting a lawsuit under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) against the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, and FBI. The court assumed jurisdiction but granted the defendants' motion to remand the matter to USCIS for determination rather than resolving the applications itself. The reasoning centered on the established judicial practice of remanding such cases to the executive agencies best equipped to conduct background checks and assess security risks, with an expectation of resolution within one year, while denying attorney fees as the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties.

  immigrationprocedurefederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,013 words)

• Moore v. Ferrellgas, Inc.

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008-02-08 · cited 14×

  In Moore v. Ferrellgas, Inc., plaintiff Kenneth Moore sued his former employer for age discrimination and disparate treatment under Michigan common law and the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act after his 2007 termination, which the company attributed to workforce reduction. The parties had signed a 1993 employment agreement containing a broad arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the employment relationship. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed under the Federal Arbitration Act and Missouri law, that the claims fell squarely within its scope, and that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis such as unconscionability for invalidating it.

  labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,071 words)

• United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers Int'l Union v. Dixie Consumer Products, LLC

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2008-01-07 · cited 1×

  The case involved a dispute between a union and an employer over whether eligibility determinations for sickness and accident benefits under an ERISA plan were subject to arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The union filed a grievance after benefits were denied to members and sought to compel arbitration, while the employer argued that such disputes must follow the plan's ERISA administrative process. The court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the arbitration clause in the agreement did not cover individual benefit eligibility challenges because the agreement only specified benefit levels and the ERISA plan provided a separate mechanism for eligibility disputes. The reasoning centered on the presumption of arbitrability being overcome here, as the contract was not susceptible to an interpretation requiring arbitration of these ERISA determinations.

  labor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,211 words)

• Avery v. Prelesnik

  District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2007-11-08 · cited 3×

  This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Chamar Avery, who was convicted in Michigan state court of second-degree murder after being acquitted of first-degree felony murder in connection with a 2000 pizza delivery robbery and killing. Avery raised two ineffective assistance of counsel claims: failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses, and failure to object to hearsay testimony admissible only against his co-defendant. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report de novo under AEDPA and Strickland v. Washington standards, granted relief on the alibi claim because the state courts' denial represented an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, but denied relief on the hearsay claim as the state courts' decision was reasonable. The court recommended that the state either release Avery or grant him a new trial within 120 days.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (9,299 words)