Stewart Albert Newblatt

This case arose from a 1991 airplane crash in Michigan that killed three people, including Albert Brereton; the plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence by air traffic controllers, with liability already apportioned and the remaining issue being damages under the Michigan Wrongful Death Act. The court considered motions in limine to exclude expert testimony on hedonic damages, which seek to compensate for the loss of enjoyment of life. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court accepted, that such hedonic damages are not recoverable because the MWDA must be narrowly construed and explicitly limits recoverable damages to items like pain and suffering while conscious, loss of financial support, and loss of society and companionship, without including the value of a prematurely ended life. The court further held that the plaintiffs' expert's proposed testimony using a willingness-to-pay model was inadmissible under Daubert because it lacked reliability and would not assist the factfinder. The reasoning emphasized statutory limits on damages in derogation of the common law and the absence of any basis in Michigan precedent for the claimed category of recovery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, the plaintiff brought a § 1983 action claiming that township officials impeded his efforts to develop property in retaliation for his public criticism and prior lawsuits against them, violating his First Amendment rights to free speech and court access as well as his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' motion in part by dismissing one defendant, and permitted substitution of a deceased party's estate. It reasoned that state court rulings upholding the township's actions under local ordinances did not bar the federal claims via res judicata, because those rulings did not address whether the officials acted with retaliatory motive, and even lawful actions can give rise to liability if taken for an improper constitutional reason.

civil rightsfree speechpropertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute in bankruptcy proceedings where the Chapter 7 Trustee sought to surcharge Heidelberg Harris, a secured creditor with a security interest in a printing press, for expenses including rent, heating, and locksmith services incurred while storing the press. The Bankruptcy Court granted the surcharge totaling $13,606.63, apportioning costs based on the value of collateral among secured creditors. On appeal, the District Court reversed, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), such expenses were ordinary administrative costs not providing a special benefit to the secured creditor and thus could not be surcharged personally against Heidelberg rather than against the collateral or estate.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns whether funds received by a contractor under the Michigan Builders Trust Fund Act are encumbered such that a responsible person cannot be held liable for willful failure to pay federal employment taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6672. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Act permits use of trust funds to pay employment taxes on wages from the relevant construction projects. The core reasoning was that the statute protects not only laborers, subcontractors, and materialmen but also "others entitled to payment," which includes the IRS for such taxes, and allows proceeds to cover all construction expenses including lawfully imposed taxes on labor wages; this addressed an issue left undecided in the prior Huizinga decision due to differences in the factual record and arguments presented.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves conflicting claims to life insurance proceeds under an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan after the death of participant Floyd M. Fowler, with claims filed by his ex-wife Judy Ann Fowler as the designated beneficiary and by their minor children Florisa and Julie Fowler pursuant to a divorce judgment. The court denied Judy Ann Fowler's motion for summary judgment and granted judgment in favor of the minor children. The core reasoning was that the divorce judgment qualified as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) under ERISA because it clearly specified the beneficiaries, the amount of benefits, and the timing of payment, thereby exempting it from ERISA preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(7) and requiring distribution according to the judgment rather than the plan documents.

labor & employmentfamily lawfederal power

This case involved ERISA-regulated pension funds and an individual employee seeking to recover unpaid wages and fringe benefit contributions owed by a defaulted subcontractor on a public school construction project, by suing the surety company that posted a payment bond under the Michigan Public Works Act. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to sue on the bond and could recover the fringe benefits as compensation for labor. The core reasoning was that the Michigan statute must be liberally construed like the federal Miller Act, that the statute does not limit recovery to wages alone but covers contributions required under collective bargaining agreements, and that ERISA does not preempt the state law because the Public Works Act is a generally applicable statute with only incidental effects on ERISA plans.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves parents suing a public school gym teacher under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his alleged exposure of his genitalia to their children during the 1989-90 school year deprived the parents individually of their constitutional liberty interest in the parent-child relationship, including interests in their children's safety, family integrity, and free association. The defendant moved to dismiss the parents' constitutional claims in count I. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, holding that parents have standing to assert their own liberty interest in the parent-child relationship but that the alleged conduct did not state a viable claim because it was not directed at severing or diminishing that relationship and any resulting emotional distress was merely incidental to the harm to the children. The court reasoned that constitutional protection of intimate family relationships under the First and Fourteenth Amendments requires governmental action aimed at the relationship itself, as opposed to tortious acts that only indirectly affect it, and noted that even cases involving complete severance like wrongful death have not always been recognized as giving rise to such claims.

civil rightsfamily law

This case stems from a 1989 car accident in which plaintiff Thomas Roger Lee suffered serious injuries after leaving a party where alcohol was served and he had been drinking; police officers had arrived to disperse the party and directed Lee and others to leave. Lee and related plaintiffs sued the officers and their police departments, asserting state-law tort claims for breaching a statutory duty to take an apparently incapacitated person into protective custody and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging substantive due process violations. On the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, determining that factual disputes existed on whether Lee appeared incapacitated and whether any failure to act constituted gross negligence, while dismissing other claims for lack of evidence of deliberate indifference, unconstitutional policies, or causation. The decision turned on application of Michigan's incapacitated-persons statute, standards for gross negligence, and requirements for municipal and individual liability under the Due Process Clause.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a defendant insurance company timely removed a state court action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The plaintiff argued for remand, claiming the removal notice was deficient and untimely because service was made on the Michigan Insurance Commissioner as required by state law. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the 30-day removal period begins only upon the defendant's actual receipt of the complaint, not upon service on the statutory agent. The reasoning was that the Insurance Commissioner acts merely as a conduit for service under the state statute and does not qualify as an agent whose receipt triggers the federal removal clock, to avoid conflict with federal procedural law.

procedure

The case involves a state-court assault and battery claim brought by one U.S. Postal Service employee against another after an alleged pushing incident at a post office in Michigan. The defendant removed the action to federal court under the Westfall Act (28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)) after the government certified that he had been acting within the scope of his employment and moved to substitute the United States as the defendant. The court explained that the Attorney General’s scope-of-employment certification is subject to de novo judicial review and that Michigan law governs whether an employee’s conduct falls within the scope of employment. Because the existing record was insufficient, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of the certification before ruling on substitution or remand.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

In Darr v. Blevins, plaintiff James J. Darr sought a preliminary injunction to bar defendants from arbitrating certain pre-1987 investment claims and post-employment claims against him before the NYSE, relying on NYSE arbitration rules such as Rule 603's six-year eligibility limit. The defendants, including companies, pension plans, and individuals regulated under ERISA, had filed an arbitration claim alleging wrongful trading and mismanagement by brokers including Darr during his time at Prudential-Bache. The court denied the injunction, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action, holding that NYSE rules do not create a private right of action and that Darr lacked standing to enforce the arbitration agreement's scope in federal court. The core reasoning was that the parties' Uniform Submission Agreement committed interpretation of the rules and the arbitrability of claims to the arbitrator, not the court, which therefore lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case arose when plaintiff Johny Holloway suffered a severe eye injury in 1990 while working for defendants connected to Doug Fisher, Inc., but discovered he lacked the health insurance coverage he expected through employer-leasing arrangements with Catalyst Group, Inc., and later BSSI, leading to over $16,000 in uncovered medical costs. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants alleging fraud, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and breach of contract over failures to maintain coverage or provide proper COBRA notices. The court granted Catalyst's motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that ERISA preempts the state-law claims against it, dismissing counts VIII, IX, and X but granting leave to amend the complaint to assert ERISA claims instead. The motion by DFI, BSSI, and the Fishers was granted in part and denied in part, turning on disputed facts about representations regarding continued or equivalent coverage and responsibility for premium payments.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a Michigan plaintiff seeking repayment of a defaulted $70,000 loan from multiple defendants, including Arkansas residents Allen and Kathryn Duplantis, who had purchased a limited partnership interest in a North Carolina entity and signed an assumption agreement. The Duplantises moved to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims without prejudice, holding that Michigan's long-arm statute and constitutional due process requirements were not satisfied. The core reasoning was that the defendants, who had never been present in or domiciled in Michigan, had no minimum contacts with the state, as all negotiations and document execution for their investment occurred via a Texas broker in Arkansas and Texas, with no purposeful availment of Michigan or agency relationship tying them to the plaintiff's loan solicitation there.

procedure

This case involved allegations that a real estate company violated the federal False Claims Act by making seven false statements to a local housing authority and endorsing 51 rent checks, each endorsement certifying compliance with subsidized housing contracts that prohibited additional rent. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability for all 58 violations and awarded $4,890 in trebled actual damages. It held that the statute mandates a minimum $5,000 civil penalty per violation based on its text and legislative history, rejecting arguments for judicial discretion to impose less. However, applying the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, the court determined that any penalty above $35,000 would be excessive given the actual damages of $1,630 and the nature of the conduct, particularly the routine check endorsements, and therefore limited the total penalty to $35,000.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs, including companies and their ERISA-regulated pension and profit-sharing plans, suing defendant James Darr for breach of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. § 1109 after a stockbroker allegedly engaged in improper trading of worthless investments promoted by Darr's group at Prudential Bache, causing losses to the plans. The court granted Darr's motion to dismiss the ERISA claims against him. The decision rested on the Supreme Court's holding in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates that ERISA does not authorize suits against nonfiduciaries for knowing participation in a fiduciary's breach, unlike claims against cofiduciaries, and plaintiffs neither alleged that Darr was a fiduciary nor showed he met regulatory criteria for investment advice fiduciary status. The court noted ERISA's detailed enforcement scheme precludes inferring additional remedies.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a wrongful death action alleging that decedent Twila Ann Nichols died in 1984 from an anaphylactic reaction to the prescription drug Zomax manufactured by defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the claim for breach of a duty to adequately warn consumers of the drug's withdrawal from the market, contending that under the learned intermediary rule, it was sufficient to warn prescribing physicians of the risks and withdrawal. The court denied the motion, holding that the learned intermediary doctrine is inapplicable on these facts to discharge any duty to warn patients directly, particularly in the context of a product withdrawal, and that questions such as comparative negligence are matters for a jury.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In Burns v. Accelerated Bureau of Collections of Virginia, Inc., plaintiff Robert E. Burns sued defendant debt collector after receiving a letter demanding immediate payment of a debt owed to Chase Manhattan Bank, claiming the letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Michigan Collection Practices Act by overshadowing the required debt validation notice. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the letter did not violate these statutes. The core reasoning was that the validation notice appeared immediately after the payment request in easily readable type without any conflicting language or attempts to mislead the debtor, distinguishing it from prior cases where aggressive demands overshadowed the notice.

business & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in an adversary proceeding concerning whether a creditor's security interest in equipment was properly perfected. The debtor purchased equipment under an installment agreement that included a security interest, and the creditor submitted financing statements to the Michigan Secretary of State without including the required debtor tax identification number. The Secretary of State rejected the statements under state law, and the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the trustee, finding the statements were not filed. The district court affirmed, holding that presentation of a non-compliant financing statement does not constitute filing under M.C.L. § 440.9403 even if a fee is tendered, because the statement must substantially comply with the formal requirements of M.C.L. § 440.9402.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a products liability claim arising from an accident in which plaintiff John Eschenburg suffered a hand injury while cleaning the auger of a combine harvester manufactured by defendant Navistar; his uncle had engaged the machine without knowing the plaintiff was present. The defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on Count III, which alleged failure to warn and breach of a duty to recall the product. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the duty-to-recall claim on the ground that Michigan law does not recognize such a post-sale obligation. The failure-to-warn claim was allowed to proceed because the combine is a complex product to which the open-and-obvious-danger doctrine does not apply, the plaintiff and his uncle were not sophisticated users under Michigan precedent, and their knowledge of the hazard did not bar the claim as a matter of law.

torts & liability

The case involved the United States seeking to collect on a defaulted student loan of $986.20 from the defendant, who obtained the loans in 1980. The defendant argued that laches barred collection due to delays that impaired her ability to prove a defense of racial discrimination by the university. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that laches does not apply. Congress had amended the Higher Education Act to eliminate any statute of limitations for enforcing such debts, and equitable defenses like laches are unavailable against the government's legal claims in this context.

federal powerprocedure