Bernard A. Friedman

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves a Chapter 13 debtor who filed an adversary proceeding against Countrywide Home Loans alleging that the mortgage servicer violated the automatic stay, the confirmed plan, discharge provisions, and proof-of-claim rules by improperly assessing charges and mishandling payments during the bankruptcy. Countrywide moved to withdraw the reference from bankruptcy court to district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), contending that the claims required consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes such as HOLA and RESPA. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims are core bankruptcy matters that would not require substantial and material interpretation of those other federal laws and that the bankruptcy court is best suited to handle pretrial proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between two television networks focused on gospel music and religious programming. Plaintiff World Religious Relief sought a declaratory judgment that its use of the phrase "gospel music" in advertising did not infringe on Defendant Gospel Music Channel's trademarks. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding no actual controversy sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as the correspondence between the parties did not indicate an imminent threat of litigation and was not of sufficient immediacy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Dennis R. Jensen challenging his Michigan state convictions for first-degree home invasion and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, based on claims that trial court rulings violated his rights to due process, a fair trial, and confrontation of witnesses. The district court granted the petition after determining that a police officer's testimony about prior uncharged allegations against Jensen was admitted without an opportunity for cross-examination, in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The court concluded that the state appellate court's harmless-error analysis was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and that the error was not harmless. Relief was denied on Jensen's other claims, and the state was ordered to release him unless it retries him within ninety days.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a former Hamtramck police officer suing Maxim magazine's publishers for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy over a published story and cartoon depicting him Tasering his partner during an argument about stopping for a soda. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It held that the statements were substantially true and based on public records and a reliable AP news wire report. The court also found that the accompanying illustration, captions, and hyperbolic framing were protected as opinion and rhetorical hyperbole rather than assertions of fact. The false-light claim failed for the same reasons.

free speechtorts & liability

In Wei Shen v. Chertoff, the plaintiff sued officials from the Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, FBI, and DOJ, claiming improper delay in adjudicating his I-485 application for adjustment to permanent resident status because of a pending FBI name check. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that jurisdiction was absent under the Mandamus Act and Administrative Procedure Act. It reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) imposes no deadline for adjudication, the agency was following standard procedures without bad faith or complete inaction, and courts cannot compel faster processing of discretionary immigration applications tied to national security checks.

immigrationprocedure

This case was an appeal by debtor Frank Mitan from a bankruptcy court order converting his Chapter 11 reorganization case to a Chapter 7 liquidation, with retroactive effect to February 9, 2004. After the Sixth Circuit had reversed an earlier conversion for lack of notice, the bankruptcy court issued an order to show cause, provided proper notice to all parties, held a hearing, and again ordered the conversion nunc pro tunc, finding it necessary for a trustee to investigate assets and in the best interest of creditors. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court had complied with Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a) notice requirements, had not violated the Sixth Circuit mandate or law of the case, and had not abused its discretion in choosing conversion over dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Moore v. United Parcel Service, plaintiff Darwin Moore, a UPS package driver and union member, alleged that his employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by refusing to provide FMLA forms after he submitted a doctor's note requesting a reduced work schedule due to a health condition, forcing him to miss work from May to June 2003, and later retaliating against him for taking leave and filing a DOL complaint by terminating his employment (later reduced to suspension). UPS moved to dismiss, arguing that the collective bargaining agreement's mandatory grievance-and-arbitration process provided the exclusive remedy and barred the federal court action. The court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that federal statutory rights under the FMLA are individual rights vested by Congress that cannot be waived or supplanted by a union CBA's arbitration provisions, following precedents such as Gardner-Denver and Wright that distinguish such claims from those subject to mandatory arbitration.

labor & employment

This case involved prevailing plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to Michigan's wine shipping laws seeking to recover attorney fees and costs from an intervening defendant, the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, after settling fees with the original state defendants. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for fees from the intervenor. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, the court held that attorney fees may be assessed against a losing intervenor only if its litigation position was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, which was not shown here because the intervenor had legitimate business interests, the issues were complex and legitimately contested through multiple courts, and reasonable minds differed on the outcome. The court emphasized that fee-shifting provisions target wrongdoers, not innocent intervenors protecting their own rights.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Price v. Caruso, a Jewish prisoner at a Michigan facility sued the Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging that two 2004 memorandums separating Sabbath services and Passover Seders between facilities violated his First Amendment rights and the Sixth Circuit's prior ruling in Whitney v. Brown by preventing adequate group worship. The defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court accepted and adopted in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion in part. The core reasoning addressed distinctions between official-capacity and personal-capacity claims under § 1983, Eleventh Amendment immunity precluding damages against state officials in their official capacities, and whether changed prison circumstances satisfied the minyan and service requirements from the earlier case.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case concerned William Schramm, a sitting grand juror who, after three days of service, wrote a letter to the court requesting excusal and revealing undisclosed biases against law enforcement and minority groups, lack of respect for trials, self-described inability to care about others or be fair, and financial hardship that could lead to bankruptcy. The court decided to release Schramm from grand jury service and later fully discharged him, while initially requiring him to remain in the courthouse hallway on session days. The core reasoning was that Schramm had sworn under oath during voir dire and on his juror questionnaire to disclose any such issues affecting his qualifications or impartiality but had remained silent, directly contradicting his later statements and rendering him unsuitable to continue as a grand juror.

criminal lawprocedure

In Salem v. Yukins, petitioner Amira Sami Salem, convicted in Michigan state court of delivering and conspiring to deliver between 225 and 650 grams of heroin, sought a federal writ of habeas corpus after her state appeals were denied. The federal district court addressed multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a public trial, and conditionally granted the petition on the ground that the trial court had closed Salem's entrapment hearing to the public without satisfying the procedural requirements of Waller v. Georgia. The court reasoned that this closure violated Salem's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, while rejecting her other claims, and ordered the state court to hold a new public entrapment hearing within ninety days, with a new trial required only if the result of that hearing differed from the prior one.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Kimberly Edwards sued the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after the agency denied her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on claimed physical and mental impairments including back and foot pain, anxiety, and depression. The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which concluded that the ALJ’s decision was flawed because the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert did not fully and accurately describe Edwards’s limitations and because the ALJ’s findings appeared to rest on selective or inaccurate characterizations of the record. The court therefore granted Edwards’s motion for remand, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and returned the case to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the magistrate’s analysis.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerns a minor child, through his mother, seeking childhood Supplemental Security Income benefits on the basis of claimed disability from ADHD and borderline intellectual functioning. The court reviewed the ALJ's denial of benefits under the substantial-evidence standard of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment to the Commissioner. It held that the ALJ's findings—that the impairments were severe but did not meet or functionally equal the listed criteria in the regulations—were supported by substantial record evidence from medical evaluations, school reports, and testimony, and that the court could not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment.

healthcare

Joseph Goldstein sued Chrysler Financial Company (DCS) and Lassetter and Associates (LAI) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to the repossession of his leased vehicle while he was incarcerated. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The decision rested on the finding that neither DCS, as an automobile finance company collecting its own debts, nor LAI, a skip tracing firm, qualified as 'debt collectors' under the Act's definition. As a result, the FDCPA did not apply to their actions.

business & regulatory