Richard Alan Enslen

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

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

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

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

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

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

This diversity case arose from a dispute between NAS Surety Group and its former surety bond agent, Cooper Insurance Center, Inc., and owner Mark Cooper, after the parties terminated their 2004 agency agreement over unpaid premiums. The complaint alleged breach of contract, specific performance, breach of fiduciary duty, and counts of fraud, alter ego liability, and conversion; Cooper filed a counterclaim for libel per se based on the fraud and conversion allegations in the complaint and its transmission to Michigan's Office of Financial and Insurance Services. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the fraud, alter ego, and conversion counts because the record contained insufficient evidence to support them. It also dismissed the counterclaim in full, holding that the statements were protected by absolute judicial privilege as part of a judicial proceeding and an administrative licensing complaint under Michigan law.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Inverness Holdings, Ltd. sued multiple defendants for violations of federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 1933, the Michigan Securities Act, and common law fraud, claiming it was induced to invest $440,000 in a Michigan real estate development based on false representations about zoning, permits, financing controls, and returns. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the federal claims were barred by statutes of limitation. The court granted the motion and dismissed all federal claims with prejudice, finding them untimely, then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and dismissed those without prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns ongoing enforcement of a consent decree arising from a prisoner class action alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to excessive heat exposure in Michigan correctional facilities (JMF, Egeler, and Parnall) affecting medically vulnerable inmates. The court reviewed evidence from a 2007 evidentiary hearing, including medical testimony on heat index risks, and found that defendants' proposed plan was inadequate to protect high-risk prisoners (those with conditions like cardiac or pulmonary disease) from heat indices exceeding 90. Based on findings that prior remedial efforts had not resolved the risks and that defendants' plan lacked sufficient measures for housing and segregation areas, the court rejected the plan and ordered defendants to file a new remedial plan within 45 days implementing safe conditions by July 15, 2007.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerns a Michigan prisoner's civil rights lawsuit against Department of Corrections officials, alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment arising from the denial of his request to purchase a replacement ankh cross as a symbol of his Kemetic Spiritual Science beliefs, along with other claims involving religious practices and prison conditions. The magistrate judge's report recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on most claims for failure to state a viable claim or untimely service of process, while denying it on the RLUIPA claim against Defendant Burnett regarding the ankh cross denial. Core reasoning included application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 summary judgment standards requiring genuine issues of material fact, analysis of RLUIPA's constitutionality under cases like Cutter v. Wilkinson to assess qualified immunity for 2003 actions, and dismissal of unserved defendants under Rule 4(m).

civil rightsreligious liberty

This case involves German states Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia suing Toyobo companies and employees including Thomas Bachner for allegedly conspiring with Second Chance Body Armor to misrepresent the durability of Zylon fiber in bulletproof vests sold for police use, with claims including fraud, RICO violations, breach of warranties, and consumer protection act breaches. The court granted Bachner's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full. It reasoned that the misrepresentation claims failed due to lack of a duty owed by Bachner and insufficient particularity under Rule 9(b), the RICO claims lacked a properly alleged enterprise or pattern of racketeering, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act did not apply to commercial purchases for police use, no UCC fraud claim existed or was pleaded adequately, and exemplary damages were not a standalone cause of action.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved claims by a minor student and her mother against a police officer and the City of Cadillac after the officer pepper-sprayed the compliant 14-year-old in the face at school, pushed her into a wall, dragged her by her hair, and caused her to face felony charges for resisting arrest (of which she was acquitted). The defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal Section 1983 claims alleging Fourth Amendment violations and related state-law tort claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the record, viewed in the plaintiff's favor, contained evidence supporting excessive force, an unreasonable seizure, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and municipal liability based on the city's alleged de facto policy of failing to supervise the officer despite her prior disciplinary history.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

This case involves ongoing enforcement of a 1985 consent decree arising from a 1980 class-action suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michigan Department of Corrections officials, alleging unconstitutional conditions including inadequate medical care at designated Jackson prison facilities (the Hadix facilities). Plaintiffs filed motions for further relief, to reopen judgment on mental health claims, and for contempt sanctions based on persistent failures to provide care meeting contemporary professional standards, including issues with staffing, chronic care clinics, dialysis services, and access to treatment. After hearings and review of supplemental evidence, the court found ongoing constitutional violations and decree noncompliance, particularly in physician scheduling, off-site services, and staffing shortages that created health risks. It ordered remedies including contempt fines, requirements for additional medical staff and certifications of compliance, and specific operational changes while terminating some other provisions. The core reasoning rested on factual findings from testimony and records demonstrating that prior compliance efforts had not resolved deficiencies in delivering promised medical services.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcare

This case concerns a long-running § 1983 lawsuit over conditions at Michigan Department of Corrections facilities in Jackson, originally resolved by a 1985 consent decree that included mental-health-care provisions terminated by court order in 2001. Plaintiffs moved in 2006 to reopen those provisions and obtain a preliminary injunction after the death of prisoner T.S., who was held in four-point restraints on a concrete slab in segregation for several days without adequate monitoring, hydration, or mental-health intervention despite known risks from his psychotropic medication. The court held an evidentiary hearing and reviewed extensive logs, video, and expert testimony showing systemic failures in care. It concluded that the evidence demonstrated ongoing Eighth Amendment violations sufficient to justify reopening the terminated mental-health provisions of the decree and ordering further remedial proceedings.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved a union business agent suing the union and its president under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and Michigan law, alleging retaliation for his limited contribution to a legal defense fund, his candidacy for union office, and his cooperation with a Department of Labor investigation into union finances, which included reassignments, isolation, and eventual layoff. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the claim for wrongful discharge against Michigan public policy because the LMRDA provided the exclusive remedy for retaliation based on free speech, but denied summary judgment on the claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the union's just cause policy due to material factual disputes regarding whether the layoff was permanent and whether financial concerns justified it.

labor & employmentfree speech

This case concerns a Michigan prisoner's lawsuit against corrections officials, alleging that their refusal to recognize his legally changed religious name and to provide a kosher diet violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion as an adherent of Kemetic Spiritual Science. The defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's total exhaustion rule, arguing that unexhausted claims against some defendants required dismissal of all claims. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion, and the district court adopted that recommendation after rejecting the defendants' objection. The core reasoning was that, given the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Jones v. Bock to review the Sixth Circuit's total exhaustion approach and the potential for that ruling to clarify the law, applying a partial exhaustion rule was the prudent course to avoid delaying adjudication or interfering with Supreme Court jurisdiction.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious libertyprocedure

This case is a negligence action brought by Pennsylvania resident Thomas A. Kolesar against United Agri Products, Inc. and related entities for personal injuries allegedly caused when Kolesar, a business invitee, was exposed to a spill of liquid fertilizer (metam sodium solution) at the defendants' Wisconsin facility. The suit was removed to federal court on diversity grounds and involved disputed motions in limine concerning expert testimony as well as a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It held that the plaintiff failed to present admissible expert evidence sufficient to prove causation between the chemical exposure and his claimed respiratory condition. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's experts' opinions on diagnosis, exposure levels, and causation did not satisfy reliability standards, were inconsistent with accepted medical criteria and studies of similar exposures, and lacked adequate factual or methodological support.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over disability insurance benefits under a policy purchased by Timothy Vandenberg from Harvest Life Insurance Company (later succeeded by GE Life & Annuity Assurance Company). Vandenberg was injured in 1991, received benefits for one year, and then sued in 2005 claiming ongoing entitlement, but the insurer argued the claim was barred by the policy's three-year limitations period for legal actions. The court, applying Michigan law in this diversity case, interpreted the policy's proof of loss and legal actions provisions to require suit within three years of the 1991 injury, finding the 2005 filing untimely. It granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the time bar and denied the plaintiff's motion.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a state prisoner against multiple prison officials, alleging retaliation for using the grievance process, fabrication of misconduct charges, denial of food and medical care, excessive force, and interference with mail. The court examined whether the plaintiff had exhausted available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act before filing suit. It found that the plaintiff had not exhausted remedies as to three defendants (Napel, Milliner, and Schater) but had done so for the others. The court decided to dismiss the unexhausted claims without prejudice while allowing the exhausted claims to proceed, following prior Sixth Circuit precedent permitting partial exhaustion rather than requiring dismissal of the entire action.

civil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which plaintiff Mary Scott, a former vice president at Metropolitan Health Corp., alleged on behalf of the United States that the hospital and its CEO submitted false Medicare claims; the government intervened in part and settled those claims. What remained were Scott's claims that the defendants retaliated against her in violation of the FCA's anti-retaliation provision by terminating her after she raised compliance concerns, breached her employment contract by withholding benefits and a bonus, and defamed her. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FCA retaliation claim and most other counts, holding that Scott failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on protected activity, causation, or the elements of her contract and defamation claims, while allowing one narrow breach-of-contract claim regarding a 403(b) matching contribution to proceed.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal powerprocedure