George E. Woods

In Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler AG, the plaintiff brought a patent infringement action along with state law claims for unjust enrichment and commercial misappropriation concerning an automotive rear-view mirror projector assembly that he had attempted to license. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the state law claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff had signed a Suggestion Agreement with the defendant's predecessor (Chrysler) that explicitly released the company from liability for the submitted idea except under valid patents, and the agreement's terms extended to the successor defendant.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Audi AG and Volkswagen of America suing George Izumi for cybersquatting, trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation of origin, alleging that Izumi registered and used the domain A6.com for a pornography website in violation of Audi's registered A6 mark. Izumi filed motions to quash the summons for improper service, dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and transfer the case to California. The court denied all motions, determining that the plaintiffs had effected proper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, established a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction based on the defendant's contacts with the forum, showed venue was proper under the relevant statutes, and provided no sufficient basis or evidence to support a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in a Chapter 13 proceeding regarding the priority of liens on the debtor's property. Appellants, suppliers of drywall materials, sought to establish a construction lien or equitable lien based on the debtor's unauthorized use of their supplies in building his residence, claiming priority over Eyde Construction's recorded land contract. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to Eyde, holding that no lien existed under the Michigan Construction Lien Act due to the absence of any contractual relationship between the appellants and the debtor, and that an equitable lien was not warranted. The core reasoning was that the appellants failed to provide evidence of a contract, which is required for a construction lien, and the debtor's misappropriation did not create the necessary mutuality for such claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between petroleum companies PDV-MR and CITGO and their franchisee Armada Oil & Gas Company and its principals over the termination of a petroleum distribution franchise. After plaintiffs obtained partial summary judgment on their contract claim for over $3 million in unpaid products, the remaining issues at a seven-day bench trial were defendants' counterclaims alleging that the termination violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA). The court found that the termination was based on the lawful restructuring of the UNO-VEN partnership and the resulting loss of rights to the Union 76 trademarks, which constituted valid grounds under the PMPA separate from any geographic market withdrawal. It further held that the notice provided by plaintiffs satisfied the PMPA's requirements and that defendants failed to prove any violation.

business & regulatory

The case involved Sports Authority Michigan suing Justballs, a New Jersey-based online sporting goods retailer, for federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and related Michigan state claims over the use of marks featuring the word 'Authority' on its website. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that Justballs' interactive website, which permitted Michigan customers to register, make purchases, and track orders, created sufficient minimum contacts under Michigan's long-arm statute and due process to support specific jurisdiction over the claims arising from that activity.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by SunTrust Bank against Blue Water Fiber Limited Partnership and related entities for tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate veil, stemming from disputes over a pulp mill construction contract, bond obligations, and a settlement agreement. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on findings from a prior bankruptcy court valuation hearing under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a). The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full with no objections filed. The core reasoning was that issue preclusion does not attach because matters determined at the initial bankruptcy valuation are not binding at later stages of the proceeding or in this collateral district court action.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute between petroleum suppliers PDV Midwest Refining and CITGO and distributor Armada Oil & Gas Company along with its guarantors, arising from Armada's alleged failure to pay over $3 million for petroleum products received under a marketer sales agreement originally with UNO-VEN. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, guaranty, quantum meruit, and fraud, while defendants asserted counterclaims under the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and for tortious interference with business relationships. The court granted summary judgment in part to plaintiffs on the breach of contract and guaranty claims, holding defendants jointly and severally liable for the products received but finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a portion of the claimed amount was owed; it denied summary judgment on the quantum meruit and fraud claims. The court also granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on defendants' tortious interference counterclaim as unopposed and on part of the PMPA counterclaim based on uncontroverted facts showing no recovery was warranted under the cited statutory provision, while denying the remainder without prejudice.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute where Hi-Mill Manufacturing sought declaratory relief and damages from Aetna after Aetna denied a duty to defend in an EPA Superfund enforcement action triggered by a PRP letter. After a Sixth Circuit reversal was superseded by the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling in Michigan Millers that PRP letters constitute a "suit" imposing a duty to defend, the parties settled the defense costs claim for $2.25 million via consent judgment but disputed entitlement to prejudgment interest and whether EPA/DOJ oversight costs qualified as defense costs. The court granted Hi-Mill's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Aetna's, holding that prejudgment interest is due under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.6013(5) at 12% compounded annually from the August 1990 complaint filing date through satisfaction, because the statute is remedial and applies to money damages sought on a written instrument from the outset, and oversight costs are includable as defense costs. The decision rested on the plain language of the Michigan statute and the fact that the complaint sought monetary relief from filing, distinguishing contrary lower court precedents.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a wrongful death action by the estate of a seaman against USX Corporation and asbestos product manufacturers including Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W), alleging negligence and unseaworthiness due to asbestos exposure on merchant vessels. USX filed cross-claims and third-party claims against B&W seeking contribution and indemnification. The court granted B&W's motion for summary judgment on the contribution claim and on the indemnification claim based on vicarious liability, but denied the motion as to indemnification based on a potential contractual obligation. The reasoning centered on the effect of B&W's $5,000 settlement and release with the plaintiff, which barred contribution, and on maritime law precedents distinguishing between vicarious liability (where indemnity is unavailable if the party is not fault-free) and implied contractual indemnity under the Ryan doctrine (which may still permit a claim).

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the federal government could recover Medicare payments made to working-aged beneficiaries from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) laws, specifically for individuals covered by employer-purchased complementary coverage plans that paid only deductibles and copays. The court denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. The court reasoned that MSP statutes enacted in the early 1980s made employer group health plans the primary payer and Medicare secondary for such beneficiaries, and that plans with illegal coordination provisions were effectively converted to primary coverage, authorizing reimbursement from the insurer as an entity responsible for payment.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a deaf patient, Shirley Mayberry, who sued her physician, Dr. Cheryl Von Valtier, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan's Handicappers' Civil Rights Act after the doctor sent a letter protesting the cost of providing a sign language interpreter during visits and appearing to refuse future accommodations or treatment. The plaintiff claimed the letter effectively terminated her care and denied equal access to medical services due to her disability. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the doctor intended to refuse interpreter services or discharge the patient in violation of the statutes. The reasoning centered on evidence including the doctor's letter complaining about ADA costs, notes about communication difficulties, and her deposition testimony admitting a protest of the law, which could support a finding of discriminatory intent or denial of accommodation, while also noting the doctor's claim that the letter was ambiguous and not meant to end treatment.

civil rightshealthcare

This case involved a claim by the EEOC that Continuity Programs Inc. unlawfully discriminated against employee Margaret McLemore on the basis of sex by laying her off at the end of her maternity leave while hiring and retaining a replacement data entry clerk. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability and, after trial, found that the company's stated reasons of business downturn and cost-cutting were pretextual, citing the timing of the replacement's hiring at higher pay, failure to consider McLemore for openings despite its maternity policy, continued payments to other employees including raises, and inconsistencies in the company's explanations to the EEOC. The court awarded the plaintiff $8,464.58 in back pay plus interest and permanently enjoined the defendant from sex discrimination in employment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves plaintiffs Akzo seeking to recover past and future response costs under CERCLA sections 107 and 113 from other potentially responsible parties (defendants including DeSoto and BASF) for cleanup of the Rose Township Superfund Site in Michigan, along with a state common-law public nuisance claim, after Akzo entered a consent decree with the United States requiring over $10 million in payments. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that their separate 1992 consent decree with the United States, which included contribution protection under CERCLA § 113(f)(2), barred Akzo's claims as addressing the same matters. The court denied summary judgment on the CERCLA contribution and cost-recovery claims, ruling that the defendants' settlement covered only United States response costs and not Akzo's private costs, and denied it on the nuisance claim because CERCLA does not preempt state remedies and plaintiffs alleged a valid statutory violation with distinct pecuniary damages.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Butler, the defendant, a convicted felon from a 1984 state case, was indicted under federal law for possessing a firearm in 1991 and moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that his civil rights had been restored upon completion of his sentence under Michigan law, which would exclude the prior conviction as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 921(a)(20). The government opposed, contending that restoration was not substantial enough. The court denied the motion, holding that the defendant's civil rights had not been restored because Michigan law permanently bars felons from jury service. The decision relied on Sixth Circuit precedent requiring review of the whole of state law regarding voting, public office, and jury service, finding that the jury disqualification prevented application of the statutory exception.

gunscriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved girls enrolled in Detroit public schools and their parents suing the Board of Education to block the opening of three male-only academies serving preschool through fifth grade, which featured specialized programs like Afrocentric curricula, mentoring, and classes on male responsibility. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Michigan Constitution, Title IX, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and state laws by excluding girls from these programs aimed at addressing issues like dropout rates and unemployment among urban males. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits because the gender-based exclusion was not substantially related to the academies' objectives, as girls in the district faced similar challenges and gender served as an improper proxy for at-risk status. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury from denial of equal educational opportunities, that the balance of harms favored relief, and that the public interest supported enforcing constitutional and statutory equality requirements.

civil rights

In Woolery v. Brady, the plaintiff, a Program Systems Computer Analyst at the IRS, sued under Title VII alleging that his non-selection for a Supervisory Computer Systems Analyst position was due to discrimination based on race, sex, and physical handicap. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies regarding the promotion decision. The government articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the non-selection: the plaintiff received an insufficient score from the ranking panel based on prior evaluations and thus was not placed on the "Best Qualified" list for interview by the selecting official. The plaintiff failed to present evidence that this reason was pretextual or that the decision involved discriminatory animus, and he also had not timely exhausted remedies to challenge the underlying evaluations themselves as discriminatory. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendant.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs Rudolph and Mary Nemes sued Merrill Lynch over disputes arising from their brokerage account, asserting both state law and federal securities law claims. The defendant moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on the customer agreements the Nemeses had signed, which contained an arbitration clause with an exception for federal securities claims "to the extent that [they] may be litigated." The court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, holding that the exception language was merely a notice provision reflecting outdated law under Wilko v. Swan and SEC Rule 15c2-2 rather than a substantive right to litigate, and that Supreme Court precedent in Shearson/American Express v. McMahon makes federal securities claims arbitrable with doubts resolved in favor of arbitration. The court followed the weight of authority from other circuits and districts rejecting similar arguments that the clause preserved a right to court litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns an appeal by Durant Enterprises, Inc. from a bankruptcy court's order confirming the Unsecured Creditors Committee's Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Hamady Bros. Food Markets, Inc., which transferred ownership of the debtor to McColgan Investment Company rather than allowing Durant to retain control. After Durant declined to pursue a stay and the plan took effect—with ownership transferred, new financing secured, and other transactions completed—the Committee moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and to supplement the appellate record with evidence of implementation. The district court granted the motion to supplement the record with bankruptcy court orders, denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice, remanded the disputed mootness issues for fact-finding and a determination by the bankruptcy court, and struck Durant's appellate brief while extending briefing deadlines pending resolution of mootness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

William Broom sued TRW Credit Data and other defendants in Michigan state court, alleging that his name was fraudulently used as a co-signer on a defaulted loan, resulting in a negative credit report sent to TRW, and asserting claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) plus state-law negligence, libel, and fraud. TRW removed the case to federal court, prompting Broom to move for remand on grounds that the FCRA bars removal and that not all defendants joined the removal petition. The court denied the remand motion, ruling that the FCRA's provision allowing suits to be "brought" in any competent court does not restrict removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, that required defendants had joined or were unserved, and that the related state claims fell within pendent jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the United States' efforts to recover alleged overpayments of Medicare benefits that should have been covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan under various employer group health plans, along with requests for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Medicare secondary payer statutes. The court addressed multiple motions for partial summary judgment, granting in part Blue Cross's motion on money damages claims by holding that Blue Cross has no liability when acting solely as an administrator for self-insured plans, but denying it as to other claims. The court denied Blue Cross's motion regarding declaratory and injunctive relief without prejudice, denied the United States' motion for summary judgment on liability without prejudice, and denied a motion to stay discovery as moot. Core reasoning centered on the applicability of the MSP laws to Blue Cross's roles, the six-year federal statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a), and the finding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not bar the federal claims.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory