Benjamin F. Gibson

In Myers v. United States, Mary Myers sued to quiet title to her claimed one-half interest in the couple's residence after her husband Matthew Myers entered a 1987 plea agreement in a federal drug and RICO case; the government counterclaimed to enforce the agreement, which required the couple to place a lien on the home in lieu of forfeiture and to transfer it if needed for civil tax collection. The court held that the plea agreement was a valid and enforceable contract against Mary Myers under Michigan law. It reasoned that the essential elements of a contract were met, including consideration from the government's promise not to prosecute family members or pursue further charges, that Mary Myers was competent and not under duress when she signed, and that the agreement's terms bound both spouses to convey the property for tax purposes regardless of her lack of personal tax liability.

criminal lawpropertytaxesprocedure

This case involves a product liability lawsuit brought by the estates of three individuals killed in a 1992 house fire, alleging that a defective ballast in a fluorescent light fixture manufactured by Advance Transformer Co. overheated and ignited the blaze. The plaintiffs asserted claims for manufacturing defects and design defects under both breach of implied warranty and negligence theories, as well as failure to warn. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the negligent manufacturing claim and all design defect claims due to insufficient evidence, but denied summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim under breach of warranty and on causation, finding that expert opinions and circumstantial evidence created genuine issues of material fact for a jury to decide whether a defect attributable to the manufacturer caused the fire.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Dayton Hudson's ERISA employee health benefit plan and Auto-Owners no-fault auto insurance policy over primary liability for roughly $22,000 in medical expenses incurred by a covered employee injured in a car accident. Both the plan and the policy contained coordination of benefits clauses, and the plan sought reimbursement from the insurer as subrogee. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plan was primarily responsible. It reasoned that ERISA requires giving effect to the plan's terms in conflicts with traditional insurance policies, and under federal common law the plan's clause did not subordinate itself to no-fault coverage while the policy explicitly did subordinate itself to other plans.

healthcarelabor & employmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The EEOC sued Sara Lee Corporation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that the company terminated four quality control inspectors due to their age as part of a reduction in force. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on multiple issues, ruling that the severance waivers signed by the employees were invalid because they were part of a group termination program and failed to meet the ADEA's requirements for knowing and voluntary waivers. It further held that the employees did not ratify the invalid waivers by retaining benefits, that one employee's administrative charge satisfied requirements for all, and that no statute of limitations barred the EEOC's claims, while rejecting the EEOC's request for injunctive relief regarding future waivers. The court denied full dismissal but required the EEOC to resume individual conciliation efforts before pursuing back pay claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved dairy farmers who purchased Harvestore silos from 1967 to 1979, alleging that defendants A.O. Smith and Harvestore fraudulently marketed the silos as oxygen-limiting and airtight despite internal knowledge they were not, leading to claims of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and civil RICO violations based on resulting economic losses from spoiled feed and reduced dairy production. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine, statutes of limitations, and lack of proximate causation. The court held that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraud and conspiracy claims because the dispute arose from a commercial sale of goods involving only economic losses properly addressed under contract and UCC remedies rather than tort. However, it denied summary judgment on the RICO claim, finding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim and whether defendants' alleged conduct proximately caused the plaintiffs' damages.

business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute in which Michigan State University sued Research Corporation and its subsidiary Research Corporation Technologies for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related claims arising from a 1950 agreement under which RC was to patent and commercialize MSU faculty inventions, with proceeds shared between the parties. After MSU attempted to terminate the contract in 1995, RCT initiated arbitration proceedings, prompting MSU to file suit and seek to enjoin arbitration. The court granted the defendants' motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration. It reasoned that federal law strongly favors arbitration, the contract's broad arbitration clause covered all of MSU's claims, the agreement remained valid and enforceable after RCT's assignment from RC, and MSU had ratified the assignment through its conduct over many years.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Pattison v. Meijer, Inc., a long-term employee with a seizure disorder from a head injury sued his employer under the ADA for failing to accommodate his request for a day-shift transfer, claiming he could not safely drive at night, and under Title VII for sex discrimination by comparing his situation to a female employee transferred due to pregnancy. The court first ruled that the ADA claim was timely because it related back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the employer on the ADA claim, finding that Meijer had offered reasonable accommodations such as alternative positions or schedule adjustments that the plaintiff rejected, and that the requested transfer was not required. The court also granted summary judgment on the Title VII claim, holding that the employer articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and the plaintiff failed to show pretext, and dismissed the union as not a necessary party.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case is a civil antitrust suit brought by the Michigan Attorney General on behalf of over 500 public school districts against six corporations and six individuals, alleging a conspiracy to submit prearranged losing bids and thereby avoid competition on contracts for school buses, bodies, and parts in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. Defendants moved to dismiss or strike on statute-of-limitations grounds, arguing inadequate pleading of fraudulent concealment, and for summary judgment; they also challenged the Attorney General’s standing. The court denied all motions, holding that the complaint adequately alleged affirmative acts of concealment (such as complementary bids and document destruction) sufficient to toll the four-year limitations period under Clayton Act § 4B, that material factual disputes remained on accrual and concealment, and that the suit served a statewide public interest because state funding reached every district and the action was not merely local. The court therefore concluded the Attorney General had authority to prosecute and that summary judgment was premature.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Americhem Corporation seeking defense and indemnification from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company under five general liability insurance policies from 1975 to 1980 for claims related to environmental contamination at a site where containers were reconditioned for Americhem. St. Paul moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Americhem could not prove the terms of the lost policies. The court denied the motion, finding that Americhem presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, including declarations pages and witness testimony, to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the policies' existence and terms, which must be resolved by the trier of fact.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks challenging amendments to Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act that redefined places of public accommodation to include certain private club facilities and required equal access to those facilities for all adults covered by a membership, regardless of sex. The organization argued that the changes violated its members' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to intimate and expressive association by undermining its male-only membership policy. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Its reasoning centered on the statute's limited scope, which addressed only facility access rather than membership decisions, preserved the private club exemption, and did not create an irrebuttable presumption against associational protections or impose unconstitutional burdens.

civil rightsfree speech

This case involved a buyer who purchased a Boston Whaler boat in 1984 for use in his charter fishing business and later alleged that the boat sank while docked in 1991 and 1992, leading to claims against the manufacturer Boston Whaler and the seller West Shore Marine for breach of express and implied warranties under the UCC, revocation of acceptance, violations of Michigan's Consumer Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and tort claims including fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that the UCC warranty claims were time-barred because they accrued upon delivery of the boat in 1984 and the warranties did not explicitly extend to future performance, that the revocation claim was similarly untimely, that the consumer protection and Magnuson-Moss claims were also barred by the statute of limitations, and that the tort claims were precluded by Michigan's economic loss doctrine since they arose from the parties' contractual relationship rather than independent duties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over funds from a state court judgment awarded to John Peacock, which were subject to federal tax liens for over $400,000 in unpaid taxes. After the IRS levied on the proceeds held by the court, attorney Mitchell Nelson and John Stevens, who had financed the lawsuit and claimed interests in the proceeds, sought return of portions of the funds from the government. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss Nelson's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the suit was filed more than nine months after the levy in violation of the limitations period in 26 U.S.C. § 6532(c). The court reasoned that Nelson had not submitted a proper request for return of property to the IRS district director to extend the deadline, and there was insufficient evidence of affirmative government misconduct to support equitable tolling or estoppel.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involved residents of Michigan nursing homes funded by Medicare and Medicaid who sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services and state officials for failing to adopt and implement the range of enforcement remedies against noncompliant facilities required by the Nursing Home Reform Law (part of OBRA-87). Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to compel the defendants to specify criteria for applying remedies such as civil penalties, temporary management, and transfer of residents. The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment against the Michigan directors, denied the state defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed the Secretary without prejudice, holding that the statute creates enforceable rights under § 1983. It reasoned that the law unambiguously required states to establish the remedies by October 1, 1989, the plaintiffs satisfied the Wilder test for a private action, and the state officials offered no valid excuse for their ongoing noncompliance or a reasonable timeline for compliance. A hearing was set to determine the form of injunctive relief.

healthcarefederal powercivil rights

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which plaintiff Oscar W. Larson Company sought a declaration that its insurer, defendant United Capitol Insurance Co., had a duty to defend it in an underlying state court action alleging negligent installation of gasoline containment systems that caused pollution damage, along with recovery of attorney fees and costs. After a bench trial, the court held that the defendant had a contractual duty to defend under the policy, that this duty arose on November 21, 1991 when the plaintiff tendered its defense to a potentially covered claim, and that the defendant breached the duty by failing to defend. The court further ruled that the duty extended to the plaintiff's affirmative counterclaims and cross-claims because they were defensive in nature and aimed at limiting liability, and it awarded $158,260.67 in reasonable attorney fees for the period through November 22, 1993. The reasoning relied on Michigan law providing that an insurer's duty to defend is triggered by tender of a potentially covered claim and must be construed in favor of the insured, along with evidence that the claims were covered and the fees were reasonable based on factors such as experience, time involved, and market rates.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In In re Lawrence, debtor Walter J. Lawrence objected under Bankruptcy Rule 9033 to a bankruptcy court's order finding him guilty of criminal contempt for failing to pay sanctions, filing additional petitions in violation of court orders, and harassing the courts. The district court reviewed the objections, which challenged the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of notice and evidence, and the impartiality of the proceedings. The court held that bankruptcy courts lack statutory authority to exercise criminal contempt powers for conduct outside their presence, following the Sixth Circuit's favorable citation to In re Hipp and its reasoning that Congress has not explicitly granted such power and that implied grants are inappropriate for non-Article III judges. It noted procedural rules like Rule 9020 exist for handling contempt but do not confer jurisdiction, and Section 105(a) does not clearly authorize criminal sanctions in this context.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved a longtime Michigan Department of Natural Resources employee who alleged handicap discrimination after her work duties and hours were changed following leg surgery, she received alleged harassing notes, her request for medical leave was denied, and she was forced into early retirement amid multiple sclerosis diagnosis. She brought claims under the Civil Rights Act, Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, dismissing counts I and III for lack of jurisdiction, count IV on the merits, and portions of counts II and V based on prior settlement, timing, and exhaustion of remedies, while allowing other claims to proceed. The reasoning centered on the binding effect of a prior state court settlement, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the employer's obligation to provide reasonable accommodations without being constrained by collective bargaining agreements that might themselves discriminate.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Martinez v. Hauch, migrant farm workers sued their employer under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA) and Michigan tort and contract law, alleging violations including substandard working conditions. The central dispute was whether the defendant qualified for the MSAWPA's family business exemption, which requires that only the owner or immediate family members perform farm labor contracting activities such as recruiting workers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the defendant did not qualify for the exemption because he used the Michigan Employment Security Commission Job Service to recruit and furnish workers, thereby having a third party perform contracting activities. The reasoning focused on the statutory requirement that all such activities must be exclusively handled by family members, and the Job Service's role in completing job orders and providing them to potential hires exceeded mere referrals.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Merrill Lynch's claims that its former employee, David Grail, breached a non-competition and confidentiality agreement by copying client records and soliciting those clients for his new employer, PaineWebber, after resigning in October 1993. Grail had demanded arbitration of the dispute and argued the agreement was unenforceable, while Merrill Lynch sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent solicitation and use of its records. The court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Grail from soliciting covered clients or using the information until arbitration could address the matter or December 15, 1993, whichever came first. The decision rested on findings that the court had authority to issue injunctive relief despite pending arbitration, that Merrill Lynch was likely to succeed on the merits of enforcing the agreement, that it would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Oscar W. Larson Co. sought a declaratory judgment that its general liability insurer had a duty to defend it against third-party claims arising from alleged negligent installation of an underground pipe containment and leak-detection system. The court addressed renewed cross-motions for summary judgment after an earlier opinion had rejected several policy exclusions, including the absolute pollution exclusion and exclusions 2(m) and 2(n). It held that exclusions 2(k) and 2(l) barred only damage to the insured’s own work and not to surrounding land, that the underlying damage constituted an occurrence, and that paragraph 2(j)(5) did not contain a temporal element barring coverage, but that paragraph 2(b) could exclude coverage for claims based on contractual indemnification. The court therefore granted the motions in part and denied them in part, leaving unresolved the question of reimbursement for attorney’s fees.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a garnishment action in which Action Auto Stores sought to collect a multi-million dollar state court judgment against its insurer, United Capitol Insurance Company, for negligent installation of gasoline containment systems that caused soil contamination at several sites. The insured had settled with the plaintiff by agreeing not to contest certain claims or satisfy any judgment except from insurance proceeds, after which a default and jury verdict were entered. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the settlement did not eliminate the insured's legal obligation or bar coverage, that the absolute pollution exclusion and several other policy exclusions did not preclude coverage, and that fact questions remained on one settlement-related provision while further briefing was required on the known-risk doctrine and an additional exclusion.

business & regulatoryenvironmentproceduretorts & liability