District Court, E.D. Michigan — appointed by Ronald Reagan
In Re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Products Liability Litigation
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-11-23 · cited 1×
This case involved a product liability lawsuit by Stasha Northcutt against Ford Motor Company for damages from a 2009 house fire allegedly caused by a defective speed control deactivation switch in a 1997 Ford Expedition owned by her tenant. The court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by Florida's 12-year statute of repose because the vehicle had been sold to its first purchaser in 1996. The plaintiff attempted to toll the repose period by arguing that Ford had actual knowledge of the defect as early as 1999 and concealed it, but the court found insufficient evidence that Ford knew the specific switch in the 1997 model was defective before the 2005 recall, so the exception did not apply.
torts & liabilityprocedure
AXIS Insurance v. Innovation Ventures, LLC
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-08-04
This case involves a dispute between AXIS Insurance Company and its insured, Innovation Ventures, LLC, over a multimedia liability policy issued in 2008. AXIS filed suit seeking to rescind the policy (Count I) on grounds that Innovation made material misrepresentations in its application regarding the geographic scope of its operations and its prior claims experience, or alternatively to deny coverage based on policy defenses (Count II). Innovation had submitted claims under the policy arising from several lawsuits filed against it during the policy period. The court denied the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Count I, as well as several related procedural motions, finding that the record did not permit resolution of the rescission claim as a matter of law at this stage, and directed AXIS to respond to the motion on Count II.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Hatchett v. City of Detroit
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-02-10 · cited 3×
This case arose from the 1998 wrongful conviction of plaintiff Nathaniel Hatchett for carjacking, armed robbery, kidnapping, and criminal sexual conduct based on a victim's identification and his confession; DNA testing performed before trial had excluded Hatchett as the source of semen recovered from the victim, but a later undisclosed test also excluded the victim's husband, and the prosecutor argued at trial and on appeal that the semen could have come from the husband. After his release in 2008 following the Innocence Project's discovery of the withheld report, Hatchett brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Sterling Heights, its officers, Macomb County, its prosecutor, and others, alleging Brady violations and failure to train or supervise. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the individual officers and prosecutors were entitled to qualified immunity or absolute immunity, that the municipalities could not be held liable absent a policy or pattern of constitutional violations, and that issue preclusion and other doctrines barred relitigation of certain matters.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
In Re Lewis
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009-05-21
The case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor who claimed exemptions for benefits received under a Ford Motor Company buyout program (EDOPP) that provided tuition reimbursement, health benefits, and stipends after her voluntary employment separation. The trustee objected to the exemptions, particularly under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(E), arguing they did not apply to the program benefits. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order allowing a full exemption, holding that the EDOPP benefits constituted compensation for loss of future earnings. The court reasoned that the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, requiring no bodily injury or other unstated limitations, and that the benefits qualified as exempt property traceable to such compensation.
propertyprocedure
Kendall v. Urban League of Flint
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009-04-03 · cited 3×
The case involved plaintiff Jamie Kendall, a biracial woman, who sued the Urban League of Flint and its board chairperson under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming she was not hired as CEO due to her race because the chairperson questioned whether she was 'black enough' based on comments about her background and identity during a lunch meeting. Kendall also brought state-law claims for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal § 1981 claim and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Kendall failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding race discrimination, as the board selected another qualified candidate after interviews and votes, employers have discretion in choosing among qualified applicants for management positions, and the chairperson's comments did not demonstrate that the hiring decision was impermissibly based on race.
civil rightslabor & employment
Holmes v. National City Bank (In Re Holmes)
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2009-02-13 · cited 12×
This case concerns debtor Jon Holmes's appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting summary judgment to creditor National City Bank in an adversary proceeding. Holmes filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed a debt of over $1.3 million from two 2005 loans; the bank sought a ruling that the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B) because the loan applications and supporting documents contained false statements about Holmes's employment, income, and assets. Holmes admitted signing several loan documents but claimed he did not read them, denied submitting many of the false materials, and asserted he was a victim of identity fraud by a third party. The district court affirmed, holding that Holmes's signed documents established the required elements for nondischargeability and that his responses failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The ruling rests on the admissions, the content of the signed documents, and the absence of evidence creating triable issues on knowledge or reliance.
business & regulatoryprocedure