In this case, plaintiff Peter Kovacs sued his former employer, Electronic Data Systems (EDS), alleging wrongful discharge, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his termination in 1989. Kovacs had signed an at-will employment agreement that could only be modified in writing by an EDS officer, and he claimed that a supervisor promised job security and assistance with his home sale in connection with a transfer to Detroit. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted EDS's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court reasoned that the at-will contract barred any expectation of just-cause termination, the alleged promises did not constitute fraud because they were not shown to be false when made and could not modify the written agreement, and there was insufficient evidence to support the emotional distress claim.
This case involves a petition by the National Labor Relations Board for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Brewery Products, Inc., alleging unfair labor practices in union negotiations. The court found reasonable cause to believe violations had occurred, based on evidence that the company withheld requested information for months, facilitated a non-union employee switch during a lockout while extending benefits only to that employee, and canceled scheduled negotiation sessions after announcing the lockout to speed up talks. With the company's assets sold and operations ceased, the court determined that sequestering funds was just and proper to preserve the status quo and potential Board remedies. The court granted the injunction, requiring retention of $82,526.08 during the proceedings.
This case was a civil in rem forfeiture action brought by the United States against a 1985 Ford F-250 pickup truck owned by Jose Navarro, a construction foreman, after Border Patrol agents discovered multiple undocumented aliens traveling with him and his work crew at a Detroit motel following a job in Massachusetts. The government alleged the vehicle had been used to transport illegal aliens within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B). The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and ordered the vehicle forfeited, holding that the government had established probable cause for the forfeiture under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) and that Navarro had failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact by presenting evidence of his lack of knowledge or other forfeiture defenses.
This case is a civil in rem forfeiture action by the U.S. government against a 1985 Ford F-250 pickup truck owned by permanent resident Jose Navarro. The government seized the vehicle after Border Patrol agents, acting on a tip, discovered multiple undocumented aliens at a motel in Detroit where Navarro and his coworkers were staying; the truck had transported the group from a job site in Massachusetts. Navarro moved to dismiss, contending he was only an employee without hiring authority and not responsible for the aliens' unlawful presence or transport. Treating the motion as one for summary judgment, the court denied it, concluding that the record showed Navarro may have been more than incidentally connected to the violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B) and thus the forfeiture could proceed.
The case concerned whether various Sztanyo business entities and Lloyd L. Sztanyo personally were jointly and severally liable under ERISA for withdrawal liability previously assessed against Apollo Truck Lines, Apollo Expediting, and Jordan Engineering, on the theory that all entities were members of the same controlled group and thus a single employer. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled that the defendants qualified as trades or businesses, that several of their affirmative defenses (including accord and satisfaction and laches) were inapplicable, and that further evidence was needed on the precise issue of common control. The court applied the MPPAA's controlled-group liability rules, examined ownership percentages and business operations, and used the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards requiring no genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment.
This antitrust case involved plaintiff Vintage Wine Selections alleging that defendant Aura Promotions violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act through three actions: filing a $10 million state court lawsuit claiming trade secret misappropriation, disparaging plaintiff's products to clients, and acquiring a competing wine promotion company. The court reviewed the magistrate's report and conducted a de novo analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards for dismissal. It adopted the magistrate's conclusion that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunized Aura from antitrust liability for instituting the state lawsuit and therefore dismissed that portion of the complaint. The court rejected full dismissal under the doctrine, instead dismissing the disparagement and acquisition claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim while granting leave to amend, and it declined to exercise jurisdiction over any pendent state-law claims.