In this case, the trustees of a union pension fund, who had obtained a judgment for ERISA employer withdrawal liability against W.G. Heating & Cooling Inc., filed suit against Winchester Land, L.L.C. alleging it was under common control with the judgment debtor and thus jointly liable; they sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent Winchester Land from transferring its sole asset, real property in Michigan, before any judgment against it. The court denied both motions. It held that federal courts lack authority to freeze a defendant's assets prior to entry of a money judgment, citing Supreme Court precedent in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. and related cases, because the plaintiffs asserted no equitable claim or interest in the specific property and were merely attempting to secure potential recovery. The court noted that limited exceptions for equitable claims tied to particular assets did not apply here.
This ERISA case involved plaintiff Luda Blajei, a former GM employee, who sued Sedgwick Claims Management Services and the GM disability plan after her Extended Disability Benefits were terminated. The court reviewed the administrator's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard, considering the administrative record of medical evidence related to her back injury and degenerative disc disease. It granted defendants' motion to strike new exhibits not presented to the administrator, denied their motion to affirm the denial of benefits, and granted plaintiff's cross-motion in part. The core reasoning was that the plan administrators' medical reviews failed to adequately address key evidence of disability, rendering the termination decision unreasonable under the plan terms. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, with the Social Security disability determination to be considered on remand.
The case concerned a commercial borrower's attempt to enjoin foreclosure by advertisement on four Michigan industrial properties after defaulting on a $16.3 million loan originally made by Lehman Brothers and later assigned through multiple entities to the defendant lender. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order. It held that Michigan law treats the mortgage as following the note by operation of law, that the defendant possessed the original loan documents and a recorded assignment establishing the chain of title, and that the borrower lacked standing to contest the validity or consideration of the interim assignment contracts. The decision rested on the statutory requirements for foreclosure by advertisement and the borrower's prior acknowledgment of the trust's status as holder.
This case is a proposed class action by consumers from multiple states against Procter & Gamble alleging that its Fusion Power razor blade cartridges were deceptively packaged to suggest they must be used with Fusion Power handles and were superior to standard Fusion cartridges, despite being identical and costing more. Plaintiffs brought claims including common-law fraud and silent fraud, which the defendant moved to dismiss. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss those fraud counts. Under Michigan law, the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims seeking purely economic damages from alleged defects in product quality, as such claims must proceed under contract or UCC remedies rather than fraud. The fraud-in-the-inducement exception does not apply here because the alleged misrepresentations concerned the quality and character of the goods themselves.
The case involved a dispute between distributor Steve Bishop and Gosiger, Inc., an Ohio corporation, over alleged underpayment and nonpayment of commissions on sales of BTB rotary machines to Anchor Coupling, Inc., following an earlier oral and written Distributor Contract that covered Euroturn machines and included an arbitration clause for disputes arising under the agreement. Bishop filed a multi-count complaint in federal court, but Gosiger moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. The court rejected the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the motions to stay, holding that the claims could not be resolved without reference to the Distributor Contract. The core reasoning was that the parties' relationship, including modifications for new products like BTB machines, was governed by the original contract's terms on commissions, designated products, and dispute resolution, making arbitration before the American Arbitration Association appropriate under Ohio law.
In this case, plaintiff Linda L. Cheeks challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), alleging disability from Crohn's disease, arthritis, and depression. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendant's motion, and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment and hypothetical questions to the vocational expert failed to adequately account for the plaintiff's moderate deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace, as well as certain limitations related to her medical conditions. The court found these errors required remand rather than affirming the denial of benefits.
