This case involved a breach of contract claim by Dean Marketing against AOC International (Taiwan) regarding a sales commission agreement. The defendant moved to dismiss for improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, finding that service after removal to federal court was defective because it used a state court summons instead of a federal one. Additionally, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Taiwanese company because it had no minimum contacts with Michigan sufficient to satisfy due process, as it was not incorporated there, did not consent, and the contract dispute did not arise from sufficient forum-related activities.
This case involves Dr. Trepel, whose contract as a radiologist at Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital was not renewed after four years, leading him to allege that the hospital and other area hospitals conspired to restrain trade in violation of antitrust laws by terminating the contract to undermine his support for a competing new hospital. The defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including lack of evidence of conspiracy, res judicata, statute of limitations, and lack of standing. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, primarily holding that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because their injuries were indirect and not the type the antitrust laws protect, as Huron Valley Hospital was the more direct victim with its own pending action, while also noting insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy allegations after defendants provided legitimate business reasons for non-renewal.
This case involves a challenge under the Social Security Act to the denial of disability benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, a 50-year-old former construction worker with a severe respiratory impairment limiting him to light work in non-dusty environments, argued that the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly classified his education level as limited rather than illiterate, which would have triggered a finding of disability under the applicable grid regulations. The court reviewed the record, including the plaintiff's hearing testimony about his inability to read or write simple messages and evidence that others completed his forms, and determined there was not substantial evidence supporting the finding of limited education. Instead, the evidence established illiteracy, and because the claimant's exertional limitations alone warranted a disability finding under Rule 202.09 of the grid (considering his age, lack of transferable skills, and illiteracy), the nonexertional limitations did not alter the outcome. The court therefore reversed the Secretary's decision and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.
This case involved a former employee who received workers' compensation benefits for a lung disease caused by workplace exposure to pollutants and then sued his employer for damages, alleging that the employer had learned of his condition through company medical exams but deliberately concealed the diagnosis, failed to provide recommended protections, and allowed continued exposure that worsened his illness. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act. The court denied the motion, holding that the exclusivity rule does not apply when an employer conceals a known occupational disease and thereby aggravates the employee's condition, creating a separate tort injury. The reasoning drew on the "dual injury" concept, distinguishing the initial compensable disease from the additional harm caused by the concealment and continued exposure, and noted that Michigan precedent supported allowing such claims to proceed outside the workers' compensation system.
The case involves Emra Corporation, operator of SUPERCUTS hair care franchises, suing Superclips Ltd. and related defendants for infringing its service marks, trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights, as well as unfair competition, by using the similar name SUPERCLIPS for hair cutting shops in Canada with operations affecting the US market. The court granted Emra's motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from using confusingly similar names, signage, colors, and promotional materials in ways that impact the United States, while requiring approval for new trademarks. The decision was based on the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the similarities in branding and trade dress between the parties' shops, supported by evidence of the plaintiff's established rights and the defendants' activities near the border.
This case is a wrongful death action for damages arising from the 1979 DC-10 airplane crash near Chicago, in which the defendants conceded liability for compensatory damages but moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on certain claims by the decedent's survivors. The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the claims of Willeen E. Platt. It denied summary judgment on the surviving sisters' claims for loss of society and companionship, relying on the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Crystal v. Hubbard that allows siblings to recover such damages. The court also denied the motion to dismiss claims for the decedent's conscious pain and suffering and pre-impact fright, holding that circumstantial evidence, including from the NTSB report, could support these claims under the Michigan Wrongful Death Statute and should be presented to the trier of fact rather than resolved on summary judgment.
