John Feikens

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmenthealthcare

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to enjoin foreclosure by advertisement on four Michigan industrial properties after defaulting on a $16.3 million loan originally made by Lehman Brothers and later assigned through multiple entities to the defendant lender.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.

propertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a plaintiff with two separate long-term disability insurance policies, one from Minnesota Life and one from Unum, both governed by ERISA. After the plaintiff became disabled due to Parkinson's Disease and began receiving Social Security Disability benefits, each insurer reduced his monthly payments by the full amount of those Social Security benefits under policy provisions allowing offsets for 'other income benefits' or 'deductible sources of income,' resulting in a double reduction. The plaintiff sued, arguing the double-offset was impermissible under ERISA and the policy terms. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the unambiguous policy language authorized the offsets and ERISA does not bar such deductions for welfare benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs, who are members of Corporate Eagle Jet, LLC (formed and managed by defendants), moving to disqualify defendants' law firm KSWB from representing defendants in litigation over CEJ's capitalization and management, based on claims that the firm also represented plaintiffs individually, acted as an intermediary, or that one of its lawyers would be a key witness. The court denied the motion to disqualify, holding that no attorney-client relationship existed between KSWB and the individual plaintiffs as members, since the firm represented only the entities CEJ and CEMS, and plaintiffs' subjective beliefs or impressions did not create such a relationship. It further found that the cited Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (1.7, 1.9, 2.2, and 3.7) did not require disqualification on the facts presented. The court also denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' reply.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves T-Mobile's application for a zoning variance to build a 120-foot cell tower in Fraser, Michigan, which was denied by the city due to height restrictions of 25 feet. T-Mobile sued, claiming the denial violated federal law by effectively prohibiting wireless services. The court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, reversing the city's denial and ordering the issuance of necessary permits. The reasoning centered on T-Mobile providing evidence of a coverage gap that the city failed to counter with expert testimony, and the city's decision conceding the gap's existence while not offering substantial evidence for alternatives.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved plaintiff Ronald Rottler suing his former employer, Michigan Automotive Compressor, Inc. (MACI), in state court for breach of contract after MACI allegedly failed to pay severance benefits under a Voluntary Separation Plan (VSP) that Rottler accepted upon resigning. MACI removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claim was preempted by ERISA because the VSP qualified as an ERISA welfare benefit plan. The magistrate judge recommended granting Rottler's motion to remand, finding that the VSP did not constitute an ERISA plan due to MACI's broad discretion in selecting participants, the plan's short duration and one-time nature, and the lack of an ongoing administrative scheme requiring ERISA protections. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation in full, overruling MACI's objections and ordering the case remanded to Jackson County Circuit Court.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) claim by railroad employee Larry Borum against Grand Trunk Western Railroad for neck and back injuries allegedly caused when he slipped on a patch of ice on a curb while walking from the sidewalk to the parking lot at the Hamtramck Yard on March 2, 2006. Borum asserted that the railroad failed to maintain safe conditions by not salting that specific area, despite his knowledge of the icy, slippery weather and visible ice. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Borum failed to present evidence of negligence. The reasoning centered on FELA’s requirement that an employer exercise reasonable care to provide a safe workplace, noting that the railroad followed periodic salting protocols, had applied salt earlier that morning, maintained lighting, and provided a nearby salt barrel, such that a temporary icy patch from weather did not establish liability.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved a pro se plaintiff, Michael Bischoff, filing claims on behalf of himself and/or Passport Pizza, a corporate entity, against alleged former franchisees for trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other violations arising from a disputed franchise agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Bischoff lacked standing to pursue the corporate claims. The core reasoning was that a corporation's claims must be litigated by a licensed attorney, and an assignment of those claims to a non-lawyer individual does not permit circumvention of this requirement, as it protects the courts from burdensome and incomprehensible pro se filings.

procedure

This case involves a franchise dispute between Victory Lane Quick Oil Change, Inc. as franchisor and defendants Hoss, Starbird, and their corporation as franchisees regarding a quick oil change center in Howell, Michigan. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and federal trade dress infringement after the ten-year franchise agreement expired in May 2007, claiming the defendants continued operating and using the plaintiff's branding and proprietary information in breach of post-termination covenants; the defendants counterclaimed that the plaintiff breached the agreement by opening a competing location nearby. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report with minor modifications and granted the plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment on its claims and for summary judgment on the counterclaims while denying the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.

business & regulatory

The case involved a declaratory judgment action filed by Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. (Living Essentials), the maker of 5-Hour Energy, against distributor CB Distributors, Inc., seeking a ruling that it had not violated Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, breached any contract or implied covenant, been unjustly enriched, or tortiously interfered with CB's customer relationships after disputes arose over pricing, distribution terms, and product recalls. CB moved to dismiss, arguing the court should decline discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act in favor of a parallel action CB had filed in Wisconsin. The court granted the motion after balancing the five Grand Trunk factors, finding that while some factors were neutral or favored retention, the plaintiff's filing constituted procedural fencing to secure a preferred forum and outweighed the rest. The Wisconsin action, removed to federal court, provided an equally effective alternative remedy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Robert Hardesty sued Officer Barkman and the City of Ecorse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with state-law claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, arising from his 2007 traffic stop and arrest for fleeing and eluding after he continued driving past activated police lights and a brief siren. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court held that a state preliminary-examination finding established probable cause for the arrest, which defeated the constitutional and tort claims; it also concluded that the officer was entitled to governmental immunity because any alleged references to the plaintiff’s heritage did not show malice or bad faith. The § 1983 claim against the city was dismissed by agreement.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Tamara Wilfinger, a former vice president at defendant St. John Health, who was terminated for cause after the employer discovered she had managed a side business while on paid medical leave; this led to forfeiture of over $40,000 in her ERISA-governed deferred compensation plan. Wilfinger sued, alleging improper denial of plan benefits and related state-law claims, arguing that she had demanded an appeal and that further administrative steps would be futile. The court dismissed the ERISA claim because Wilfinger failed to exhaust the plan's specific written claim-and-review procedures for benefit denials, finding no evidence that pursuing review would be futile as the employer had not indicated such procedures were unavailable. With the federal claim dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Daniel Solovy, a diabetic, sued City of Utica police officers Gregory Morabito and Jerome Carroll and the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and deliberate indifference to his medical needs after officers detained him during a hypoglycemic episode while driving in 2006. The officers found Solovy unconscious in his car blocking traffic, recognized his diabetic condition via his insulin pump, did not handcuff him, and summoned EMS within minutes; Solovy later claimed injuries from rough handling and delayed care but records showed prompt medical response and no corroborating injuries. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the evidence did not support any constitutional violations because the officers responded reasonably to the situation, acted without excessive force, had probable cause based on the car's position and Solovy's condition, and provided timely medical attention.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by plaintiffs against Comerica Incorporated, alleging that the bank violated sections of the Uniform Commercial Code by charging a non-account holder a fee to cash a teller's check. The court granted Comerica's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Comerica, as the drawer of the teller's check drawn on another bank, was only secondarily liable and not obligated to pay until presentment to the drawee bank, with no waiver of presentment occurring. Therefore, charging the fee did not violate the UCC provisions on obligations of issuers, acceptors, or drawers.

business & regulatory

In this case, probation officer Ronald Brazil sued his former employer, the Michigan Department of Corrections, and several individual defendants after his termination for a positive marijuana drug test, claiming violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights as well as breach of his employment contract. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. It held that sovereign immunity barred claims against the MDOC and qualified immunity protected the individual defendants because Brazil received an investigation, notice, and opportunity to respond before termination, satisfying procedural due process, and the termination did not shock the conscience for substantive due process purposes. On the contract claim, the court found no genuine issue of material fact because the MDOC's zero-tolerance drug policy and work rules provided just cause for dismissal after confirming the test result and investigating Brazil's concerns about the sample collection and possible false positives.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit against several banks, including Fifth Third Bank, alleging violations of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by charging non-account holders a fee to cash cashier's checks issued by the bank. Fifth Third Bank moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the UCC does not prohibit such fees. The court denied the motion, holding that under UCC § 3-412, the issuer of a cashier's check is obligated to pay it according to its terms without imposing additional fees, as doing so would violate the plain language of the statute requiring payment to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

business & regulatory