Marianne O. Battani

This case concerns a bankruptcy appeal by debtor Frank Barracco challenging JP Morgan Chase Bank's proof of claim for a deficiency judgment after foreclosure on properties owned by Barracco's company, DelVallo Construction. Chase had obtained a default judgment against Barracco under a personal guaranty from a 2005 loan and later pursued deficiency amounts following a 2007 foreclosure sale on the 2006 loan properties. The parties submitted the deficiency valuation dispute under Michigan law to arbitration, and the state court confirmed an award finding no deficiency claim against Barracco. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's order overruling Barracco's objections to the claim, vacated the denial of reconsideration as moot, and remanded the case, holding that collateral estoppel from the state court's rulings barred the bankruptcy court from allowing the claim.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over indemnification under a Closing Protection Letter (CPL) issued by First American Title Insurance Company to Washington Mutual (WaMu) in connection with a $4.5 million residential loan closed by First American's agent, Patriot Title. The FDIC, as receiver for WaMu after its failure, sought to enforce the CPL against First American for losses stemming from Patriot Title's fraud, which prevented WaMu from obtaining a valid mortgage lien. First American moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing and no actual loss, while the FDIC cross-moved, asserting liability and damages exceeding $1.7 million. The court denied First American's motions in full and granted the FDIC's motion in part, finding that the FDIC had standing as successor, that the fraud triggered the CPL's indemnity obligation, and that First American suffered no prejudice from delayed notice, but denied summary judgment on the exact amount of damages due to factual disputes over the loan's value in a subsequent sale to Chase. The ruling focused on contract interpretation, successor rights under the Purchase & Assumption Agreement, and evidence of actual loss.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case arose from a FELA lawsuit filed by plaintiff James Thornberry against his former employer Grand Trunk Western Railroad after he was injured while operating a switch at a GM automotive yard; Grand Trunk later filed a crossclaim against Armond Cassil, a contractor hired by GM to maintain the tracks, seeking indemnity or contribution. The court granted Armond Cassil’s motion to dismiss the crossclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56. The core reasoning was that Grand Trunk failed to show it was an intended third-party beneficiary of any contract between GM and Armond Cassil, as there was no written agreement, no objective evidence of a direct promise by Armond Cassil to benefit Grand Trunk, and Grand Trunk was at most an incidental beneficiary; common-law indemnity or contribution claims were also rejected on the facts presented.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Sandra McCandless, a former employee insured under a group long-term disability policy issued by defendant Standard Insurance Company, challenging the administrator's denial of continued benefits after an initial 24-month period. Plaintiff had received benefits based on a mental disorder diagnosis but sought to extend them under the policy's any-occupation disability definition due to alleged physical conditions; defendant also filed a counterclaim to recover $23,332 in overpaid benefits stemming from her receipt of Social Security disability payments. The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the administrative record, affirming the denial of further benefits. It reasoned that the policy expressly limited mental-disorder benefits to 24 months, that medical evidence did not establish qualifying physical disability under the stricter any-occupation standard after that period, and that the reimbursement provision authorized recovery of overpayments as equitable relief.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved a prisoner suing a prison doctor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments after radiation treatment for prostate cancer. The district court reviewed the defendant's objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that had advised denying summary judgment. The court overruled the objections, adopted the report, and denied the motion for summary judgment. It determined that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the plaintiff's condition was a sufficiently serious medical need, whether the defendant subjectively disregarded that need, and whether any delay in treatment caused detriment.

civil rightshealthcare

This case arose from a fraudulent mortgage transaction on a Michigan property where an agent for First American Title Insurance issued a $4.5 million title policy to Washington Mutual (later assigned to Chase), but WaMu failed to obtain a valid lien due to the fraud. First American acquired the property and sought to convey it to Chase to fulfill its obligations under the policy's limitation of liability clause, while Chase refused and sued for breach of contract and damages. The court granted First American's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, ruling that tendering title satisfied the insurer's duties because the policy allowed it to establish title or remove defects in a reasonably diligent manner. The decision followed the Tenth Circuit's approach in First Federal over the Seventh Circuit's contrary holding in Citicorp, treating the issue as one of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, and the court certified it for interlocutory appeal while staying proceedings.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's rulings in an adversary proceeding where plaintiffs sought to prevent discharge of a state court judgment for fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the debt nondischargeable based on collateral estoppel from the state court jury verdict. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the state court findings of fraud, including recklessness, were sufficient to meet the requirements for nondischargeability because fraud under the bankruptcy code is a broad concept that encompasses the elements proven in the state proceeding. The court rejected arguments that a higher standard of gross recklessness was needed or that the complaint lacked particularity, as the reference to the state judgment provided adequate notice. Related motions for stay were denied as moot.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved six former Northwest Airlines pilots suing their union, ALPA, claiming violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the duty of fair representation in how ALPA allocated an $888 million unsecured prepetition bankruptcy claim stemming from concessionary collective bargaining agreements during the airline's bankruptcy. Plaintiffs argued that ALPA's use of a July 31, 2006 cutoff date for determining eligibility shares unfairly disadvantaged pilots who retired near the then-mandatory retirement age of 60. The court granted ALPA's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that ALPA's allocation decisions, including the cutoff date chosen to align with the effective date of the restructuring agreement and to avoid prejudicing early retirees, were not arbitrary, irrational, or in bad faith, and that mere negligence or flawed judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation; the plaintiffs had withdrawn their other state-law claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Comerica Bank's appeal of bankruptcy court orders allowing chapter 11 debtors, including Noble International, Ltd., to use a bank account balance as cash collateral. The debtors had granted Comerica security interests tied to a primary credit agreement obligation and a limited guaranty of a separate Mexican loan to a nondebtor affiliate, with Comerica holding setoff rights against the account. The bankruptcy court had authorized the use of the funds to pay down the primary obligation, finding it provided adequate protection for the guaranty interest. The district court reversed in part, holding that Comerica retained the right to designate application of the collateral to the guaranty debt and that such use left its interest inadequately protected under the Bankruptcy Code. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a claim for $1 million in accidental death benefits under an insurance policy's common carrier coverage after the insured died in a taxi accident; the insurer had already paid the $100,000 motor vehicle benefit but denied the higher amount. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, dismissing the motion to strike expert witnesses as moot. It held that the policy language was unambiguous in requiring a conveyance operated for regularly scheduled fare-paying passenger service, which a taxi does not meet, and that the insured's receipt of the policy certificate controlled over any contrary statements in a sales call. Michigan law governed the diversity action, and extrinsic evidence did not create coverage where the plain terms excluded it.

business & regulatory

In this habeas corpus case, state prisoner Raschid Zimmerman challenged his 1999 convictions for second-degree murder and felony firearm possession, alleging ineffective assistance by both trial and appellate counsel after his direct appeals were denied. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who recommended rejecting the state's procedural default defense and granting Zimmerman's request for an evidentiary hearing to develop the record on his claims. Because neither party filed objections to the report and recommendation, the court adopted it in full, waived further review, and ordered the evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate had reasoned that the claims were not procedurally barred and that an evidentiary hearing was both necessary and permissible under § 2254(e)(2) to assess whether counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Weather Underground, a Michigan-based weather service company, suing several Delaware corporations including Navigation Catalyst Systems for cybersquatting and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act by registering domain names that were misspellings of its trademarks to redirect traffic to competitors and generate pay-per-click revenue. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or alternatively to transfer venue to California. The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Navigation Catalyst Systems because the litigation arose from its contacts with Michigan via the allegedly infringing websites accessible there, but dismissed the parent and related companies for insufficient jurisdictional contacts. The court denied the motion to transfer venue, concluding that the defendants failed to show that convenience or the interests of justice favored transfer over the plaintiff's chosen forum.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Swartz Ambulance Service and a taxpayer challenging Genesee County's 2007 Ambulance Operations and Emergency Medical Services Ordinance, which regulated ambulance providers but was never implemented; plaintiffs sought to enjoin it and recover damages on claims including antitrust violations, takings under the Fifth Amendment, §1983 civil rights violations, and state torts like interference with contract. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the Health Department defendants, the Board of Commissioners, individual commissioners from certain claims, the takings claim, state and federal antitrust claims for damages, and state tort claims against officials. Dismissals rested on governmental immunity for legislative and executive acts under Michigan law, lack of ripeness for the federal takings claim absent pursuit of a state inverse condemnation action, and statutory bars on antitrust damages against local governments. The court allowed some claims to proceed while precluding money damages on others.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involves Patriot Ambulance Service, a licensed ambulance provider in Genesee County, and a local property owner challenging the legality of a 2007 county ordinance regulating ambulance operations and emergency medical services, which had not been implemented; plaintiffs sought to enjoin the ordinance and recover damages on various federal and state claims including under §1983, antitrust laws, torts, and the Fifth Amendment takings clause. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the county health department and its officer, the board of commissioners and individual commissioners from certain claims, the takings claim, state and federal antitrust claims, and some tort claims. Core reasoning included governmental immunity protecting individual commissioners for actions within their legislative authority, the takings claim not being ripe absent pursuit of state inverse condemnation remedies, and failure to meet pleading standards or statutory bars for other counts, while permitting remaining claims to continue.

business & regulatorycivil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee suing Deloitte & Touche for its role as auditor to a company that later entered bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee alleged professional negligence, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and disgorgement of fees arising from audits that allegedly failed to properly disclose related-party transactions. The district court adopted the bankruptcy court's recommendation and dismissed these three counts. Dismissal of the negligence count was based on lack of causation, the aiding and abetting count was barred by the statute of limitations, and disgorgement was not recognized as an independent cause of action.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Mitchell v. Vasbinder, a state prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his jury conviction for unarmed robbery (after an initial armed robbery charge) as a fourth-habitual offender and his resulting life sentence. The petitioner asserted claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, trial court error in reinstating the armed robbery charge and admitting evidence, insufficient evidence, and improper sentencing. The district court denied the petition in full, holding that the state courts' rulings were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and did not demonstrate a constitutional violation.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a state prisoner sued the Wayne County Clerk alleging that she violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts and his Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him free copies of trial transcripts needed to appeal his criminal conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the defendant was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because her actions were integral to the judicial process, the plaintiff had adequate notice and opportunity to address the immunity defense despite its late assertion, and the court could consider the defense on summary judgment without prejudicing the plaintiff.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Aaron Thomas Byrd's conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with his step-daughter after two prior trials ended in hung juries. Byrd filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, based on his attorney's failure to object to the introduction and use of his decade-old forgery conviction as bad character evidence and failure to present an expert witness to rebut the prosecution's experts. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the petition after applying the AEDPA standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and finding that counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial under Strickland v. Washington. The court rejected constitutional challenges to the AEDPA standard and concluded that the errors undermined confidence in the trial outcome.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved Allan Sq. White's appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying his motion under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b) for an extension of time to file an adversary proceeding objecting to the discharge of debtors Malik and Tomika Lewis in their Chapter 7 case. The debtors had previously filed and dismissed a Chapter 13 case before converting to and obtaining a discharge in Chapter 7; White's filings were untimely or improperly placed in the adversary proceeding rather than the main case. The district court reviewed the undisputed facts and legal arguments de novo on conclusions of law, finding that White failed to show the bankruptcy court erred in denying the extension or that 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(9)'s six-year bar applied to create jurisdictional defects. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's September 2004 orders dismissing the adversary proceeding and denying White's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a prisoner at Marquette Branch Prison who sued correctional officers, alleging they intentionally broke his arm during an incident, were deliberately indifferent to his pain, conspired to withhold treatment, retaliated against him, falsified reports, and engaged in racial discrimination, all in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Official-capacity claims were dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity because they sought retroactive relief against the state. The remaining individual-capacity claims for conspiracy, racial discrimination, retaliation, and deliberate indifference were dismissed for failure to state a claim due to contradictory, conclusory, or factually insufficient pleadings, while excessive force and failure-to-report claims were resolved on summary judgment because the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond his allegations and video footage showed he instigated the incident.

civil rightsprocedure