Lawrence Paul Zatkoff

This case concerned the re-sentencing of defendant Lashawn Wilson following her conviction for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based on using stolen money orders to purchase computers shipped to various addresses. The Sixth Circuit had previously vacated the original 2008 sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded the matter. At the August 2011 re-sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a sentence of time served (45 months) with no restitution, fine, or supervised release. The court discussed broader issues including delays between conviction and sentencing and the practice of pre-prepared sentencing opinions but explicitly stated these considerations had no bearing on the sentence. The outcome was reached in accordance with federal statutes, binding precedent, and the remand instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bell v. Prefix, Inc., the plaintiff sued his former employer alleging termination in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and prevailed at a jury trial, receiving $14,563 in damages plus liquidated damages and interest. The plaintiff then moved for over $488,000 in attorney's fees and costs, along with sanctions against the defendant under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court granted the motion in part, awarding $101,600 in reasonable fees after calculating the lodestar amount, adjusting for hours reasonably expended based on the Johnson factors, and reducing for duplicative billing and other inefficiencies, while denying sanctions because the defendant's defenses were not shown to be frivolous. The court ordered the plaintiff to submit documentation of reasonable costs.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves the U.S. government's motion to withdraw the reference of bankruptcy proceedings to the bankruptcy court in light of a related criminal indictment against Dante DeMiro for operating a Ponzi scheme through MuniVest, seeking forfeiture of various assets. The district court granted the motion for mandatory withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), finding that the proceedings require consideration of both bankruptcy law under title 11 and federal criminal forfeiture statutes that regulate activities affecting interstate commerce. The court reasoned that the government, trustee, and creditors have competing interests in the forfeited assets, and that criminal forfeiture procedures provide for adjudication of third-party claims without depriving due process. It also addressed timeliness and procedural issues, concluding that withdrawal is appropriate for matters pertaining to seizure, forfeiture, and distribution of the assets, while retaining bankruptcy jurisdiction for other purposes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, stemming from a search of an apartment pursuant to a warrant. The government filed a last-minute one-sentence motion to dismiss the indictment the day before a scheduled suppression hearing, without specifying whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice or providing any supporting brief or grounds. The court granted the motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice and ordered the defendant's immediate release, reasoning that it would not compel the government to prosecute or the defendant to defend a case the government would not zealously pursue.

criminal lawprocedure

Homeowners sued their township after officials entered their backyard without a warrant on multiple occasions to investigate reports of alleged wetlands ordinance violations and to post stop-work notices following the clearing of vegetation near a lake to expand a lawn. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment warrantless search claim. It held that the entries were unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant absent narrow exceptions such as consent or exigent circumstances, none of which were present. The court noted that observations from public vantage points did not authorize physical entry onto the curtilage, and the officials' actions went beyond mere posting of notices to include further investigation on the property.

criminal lawcivil rightspropertyenvironment

The case concerned a challenge by plaintiff Kevin J. Murray to the federal government's bailout of AIG under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), alleging that AIG's subsequent use of some funds for Sharia-compliant insurance products violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied the motion to strike. The court reasoned that the bailout funds served the secular purpose of stabilizing the financial system, that any connection between the funds and religious activities was minimal and attenuated, and that a reasonable observer would not perceive the government's actions as an endorsement of Islam or any religion.

religious libertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by members of the Marcilis family against Redford Township police officers, Detroit police officer Chris Richardson, and the township itself, arising from a 2007 narcotics raid on two homes pursuant to search warrants based on a confidential informant and controlled buys. Plaintiffs alleged that officers failed to knock and announce before entering, used excessive force by pointing guns and physically restraining residents (including a burn victim and a woman with cancer and diabetes), detained people for extended periods without charges, destroyed medication, and conducted overly destructive searches, asserting violations of the Fourth Amendment and related rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that qualified immunity barred some claims such as those related to the knock-and-announce requirement and municipal liability due to lack of notice of prior violations, while allowing other claims involving excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs to proceed where genuine issues of material fact existed under an objective reasonableness standard.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerned a trademark dispute between the makers of 5-hour ENERGY and 6 Hour POWER energy shots. The plaintiff alleged common-law trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, while the defendant asserted counterclaims including false advertising, antitrust violations, tortious interference, and cancellation of the plaintiff's trademark registration on fraud grounds. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the infringement claim, finding no infringement, and granted the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment on all counterclaims, dismissing them for lack of supporting evidence or standing. Various evidentiary and sanctions motions were denied as moot, resulting in the dismissal of the entire action.

business & regulatory

This case involved a jury trial between an art gallery (Park West) and an art registry (FAR) along with individual defendants, featuring multiple claims and counterclaims of defamation, tortious interference with business expectancies, conspiracy, and a violation of the Lanham Act. The jury ruled against Park West on its affirmative claims but in its favor on the defendants' counterclaims, awarding FAR $500,000 on the Lanham Act claim. Park West moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdicts, but granted a new trial in part on 13 claims due to prejudicial misconduct by defendants' counsel and witnesses, including violations of orders in limine and introduction of inadmissible or misleading evidence that rendered the trial unfair.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved allegations that Defendant Hicks violated the conditions of his federal supervised release, which followed a 2007 conviction for manufacturing and possessing marijuana. After his release in 2010, Hicks was stopped by police and found in possession of marijuana (claiming it was for medical use under Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act), along with a passenger who also possessed marijuana and cash. The court held an evidentiary hearing and reviewed briefs, then determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Hicks had violated his release conditions prohibiting commission of federal crimes, unlawful possession of controlled substances, and association with persons engaged in criminal activity. The core reasoning was that marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance illegal under federal law (21 U.S.C. § 841), and state medical marijuana laws do not alter federal prohibitions or excuse violations of supervised release terms.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved a healthcare provider intervening to seek reimbursement under Michigan's No-Fault Insurance Act for medical care provided to a plaintiff injured in a 1992 motor vehicle accident, after the plaintiff settled her claims against the insurer. Following a jury verdict awarding the provider $352,629.16, the insurer moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and to offset the judgment by attorney fees. The court denied both motions, holding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the statute does not authorize attorney fees for the insurer merely because the jury found benefits were not overdue, as the issues of entitlement to benefits and timeliness of payment are distinct.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case centered on a student who alleged that his school district violated his rights by failing to stop repeated peer bullying and name-calling, including slurs like 'gay' and 'fag,' during middle and high school years. Following a jury trial, the court granted the defendant school district's motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the claims. The decision rested on trial evidence showing that administrators had received reports of the incidents, imposed discipline on perpetrators in multiple cases, offered support measures such as daily meetings and resource room access, and that certain prior assumptions about the school's inaction were contradicted by the record. The court concluded that this evidence established the district's responses were not clearly unreasonable under applicable legal standards.

civil rights

This case involved a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging his convictions on the ground that admission of preliminary examination testimony from two unavailable witnesses violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition, agreeing that the witnesses were unavailable despite the prosecution's diligent efforts to locate them and that the petitioner had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing. The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that it was not reasonably debatable whether the opportunity to cross-examine satisfied Crawford v. Washington, which requires only unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination rather than effective or thorough questioning. The court explained that petitioner's counsel was permitted to question the witnesses, elicit inconsistencies, and impeach them with prior statements, and that the quality of the cross-examination is not relevant under clearly established federal law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a subrogation claim by an insurance company against an aquarium manufacturer after a house fire allegedly caused by a faulty light switch in a 50-gallon aquarium hood. The plaintiff asserted claims for breach of implied warranty and negligence under Michigan products-liability law. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had not established causation or identified a specific defect in the switch or manufacturing process. The expert opinions were deemed insufficient and contradictory, and no evidence showed unreasonable conduct by the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Radar Industries sued Cleveland Die and related defendants over the production and sale of clevis links allegedly covered by Radar's '661 and '810 patents. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions, denying the motion based on laches, granting partial summary judgment on Counts IV-VI, and denying partial summary judgment on Counts II and V. The grant of summary judgment on Counts IV-VI rested on the determination that the patented device had been sold more than one year before the effective filing date, creating an on-sale bar to patentability with only prospective effect from any certificate of correction. The denials turned on factual disputes regarding delay and the defendants' knowledge of the patents that required further discovery.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a federal taxpayer and practicing Catholic suing the Treasury Secretary and related defendants, alleging that the government's acquisition of a majority stake in AIG and injection of EESA bailout funds violated the Establishment Clause by supporting AIG's Sharia-compliant financing activities, including Takaful insurance and related religious elements. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had standing under Flast v. Cohen and that the allegations—unrestricted government funding of AIG combined with its post-bailout expansion of Sharia products and government sponsorship of an Islamic finance forum—raised a plausible question of whether the funding had the effect of advancing religion, sufficient to survive dismissal at this stage.

religious libertyfederal power

This case involves the resentencing of defendant Castano on two counts—felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possession with intent to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)—after his conviction on a related firearm-during-drug-trafficking count was reversed on appeal due to faulty jury instructions. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for these counts was 37-46 months, and the court reimposed its original concurrent 42-month prison terms on both counts, along with the prior terms of supervised release and special assessments. The court declined to consider the defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation achievements or the government's request for an upward departure to 102 months total, finding the latter unsupported by precedent and inapplicable here. It based the sentence on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), determining that 42 months was sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing. No hearing was held, as the court found it unnecessary given the absence of new issues requiring allocution.

criminal lawguns

This case concerns allegations by RDI of Michigan that Michigan Coin-Op Vending and its owner breached a lease agreement and infringed copyrights by illegally copying video poker games and U9 computer chips using an Eprom burner after initially obtaining a legitimate license to distribute the games. The court granted RDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, which bars the defendants from copying, operating, selling, or moving any infringing games or related equipment, and also granted RDI's motion to strike a polygraph report. The ruling rested on affidavits from former employees describing the unauthorized copying, the defendants' prior admissions of unlicensed activity, and the risk of continued infringement if relief were not granted.

business & regulatory

This case involved a business owner and his company suing the City of Livonia after receiving citations under the city's sign ordinance for displaying a vehicle advertisement and a portable "Piano Sale" sign outside their store. Plaintiffs brought First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that various provisions prohibiting portable, moving, flashing, and certain vehicle signs were unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech. The court granted summary judgment in part, striking section 18.50C(19) of the ordinance as an invalid content-based regulation of commercial speech, while denying the motion as to the remaining provisions after finding them content-neutral, not vague, and justified by the city's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety. The court reasoned that the struck provision lacked narrow tailoring and that the other sections provided clear standards without inviting arbitrary enforcement.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In MacK v. Jones, a state inmate filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Michigan conviction for first-degree murder (supported by premeditation or felony murder theories) and life sentence without parole, based on claims including improper admission of prior convictions as impeachment evidence, prosecutorial failure to timely disclose a prior conviction used as rebuttal character evidence, violation of his right to remain silent under Miranda during police interviews, and cumulative error. The district court denied the petition in full. The court reasoned that the Michigan Court of Appeals' rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, as the petitioner's statements to police (such as "I know my rights and I don't want to talk about it. I did it") did not amount to an unequivocal invocation of the right to silence, and no other constitutional violations occurred.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power