Robert Hardy Cleland

This case concerned whether condominium association fees assessed after a debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition constitute pre-petition claims dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) or post-petition claims that are not. The debtor had owned a condominium unit subject to ongoing assessments by the Maple Forest Condominium Association, had filed for bankruptcy while in arrears, and retained title to the property despite surrendering it in the plan, with no foreclosure yet completed by secured creditors. The bankruptcy court had ruled that all such fees were pre-petition claims subject to discharge, but the district court reversed that determination in part, holding that assessments for periods after the petition date are post-petition claims. The core reasoning was that the Bankruptcy Code defines dischargeable debts as those arising from pre-petition claims, while post-petition obligations generally remain the debtor's responsibility, and the fees here accrued based on the debtor's continuing ownership interest after filing.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, centering on the valuation of a debtor's real property subject to a judgment lien. The creditor argued that the debtor made a binding judicial admission in an adversary proceeding answer stating the property was worth $975,000, which should have required the court to accept that higher value instead of the $575,000 figure used in the plan. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order confirming the plan, holding that the isolated and contradictory statement did not constitute a binding judicial admission material to the bankruptcy. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy court had properly weighed evidence from hearings, including testimony on market conditions, to determine the property's value on the petition date.

procedureproperty

The case involved a Wal-Mart employee who was terminated in 2009 after a background check revealed his 1997 sex offense conviction and registry status, despite having disclosed an earlier felony and remaining employed for years afterward under a new company policy on criminal checks. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleged wrongful termination, breach of contract, and employment discrimination claims based on disparate treatment of registered sex offenders and his criminal record. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that Michigan law treats the employment as at-will with no protected status for felons or sex offenders under Title VII or state law, that the complaint failed to allege discrimination against any recognized protected class, and that the contract and discrimination claims lacked a plausible legal basis.

labor & employmentcriminal law

The case involved the sentencing of defendant Jesse Albert Young after his guilty plea to a federal drug offense committed before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) took effect on August 3, 2010. The defendant objected to the presentence report's use of pre-FSA mandatory minimum penalties, arguing that the FSA's reduced penalties should apply because sentencing occurred after the law's enactment. The court overruled the objection and held that the FSA does not apply retroactively to offenses committed prior to its effective date. The core reasoning relied on the federal general savings statute (1 U.S.C. § 109), which preserves penalties under repealed laws unless the new statute expressly provides otherwise, combined with Sixth Circuit precedent in United States v. Carradine finding no such retroactive intent in the FSA.

criminal law

This case involved a patent infringement dispute in which Automotive Technologies International sued Delphi and several vehicle manufacturers, alleging that Delphi's Passive Occupant Detection System (PODS) for regulating airbag deployment infringed four patents related to automotive sensor systems and vehicle diagnostics. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity based on anticipation by prior art. After conducting a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms such as 'plurality of sensor systems' and 'diagnosing the state of the vehicle,' the court considered multiple motions for summary judgment. The court granted four of the defendants' motions, finding the patents invalid, and terminated the remaining two motions as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Prestige Pet Products, Inc. suing defendants for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 7,790,212 on a method for producing porkhide dog chews using gaseous smoke, seeking damages including under provisional rights from an earlier published application. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the patent claims had been narrowed during prosecution by adding references to gaseous smoke to overcome prior art rejections involving liquid smoke, so the initial 2002 publication was not substantially identical to the issued patent and could not support provisional rights under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). The court dismissed with prejudice the specific claim for provisional rights based on the first publication but noted the later 2007 publication might support such rights.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a chapter 13 bankruptcy filing by the Senczyszyns in March 2009 for 2008 state income taxes that became due in April 2009, creating a straddling tax claim. The Michigan Department of Treasury objected to the debtors' proof of claim on its behalf, arguing the claim was post-petition under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) because the taxes became payable after the petition date. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the objection, holding instead that the claim was governed by chapter 5 provisions, including § 502(i), which treat it as a pre-petition claim entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8). The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code's scheme distinguishing pre- and post-petition claims and the meaning of when a tax claim becomes payable.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Automotive Technologies International against several automotive suppliers, alleging infringement of five patents related to vehicle safety systems. After the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one patent and the court granted summary judgment invalidating the remaining four patents as anticipated or obvious based on prior art and lack of enablement, the defendants sought attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation and found the case exceptional, awarding defendants over $2 million in fees and costs incurred after March 2009. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's claims were objectively weak and lacked a reasonable basis, as prior litigation admissions and the patents' deficiencies made success unlikely, yet the plaintiff continued litigating without sufficient justification. The award was limited to reasonable post-March 2009 expenses tied to overcoming the invalidity arguments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Career Agents Network suing defendants over two domain names that hosted critical 'gripe' websites about plaintiff's recruiting business opportunities, alleging violations of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. After granting summary judgment to defendants, the court addressed their motion for attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court granted the motion in part, holding that the case qualified as exceptional because the suit was unfounded when filed and involved an oppressive litigation strategy. It applied the lodestar method to award a reduced fee amount of $20,000 rather than the full $36,424.82 requested, after analyzing hours, rates, and specific billing entries.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an in rem civil forfeiture action in which the government sought to forfeit 477 firearms seized from a Michigan gun store after undercover ATF operations led to the conviction of the store's proprietors for willfully dealing in firearms without a license under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). Three adult children of one proprietor filed claims asserting ownership or heir status over specific firearms they described as a private family collection stored in a basement vault and not offered for sale. The court granted the government's motion to strike the claims, holding that the claimants lacked Article III standing because they had no present legal interest in the firearms—their father had never made a valid inter vivos gift or other transfer conveying ownership, and his statements about intending to hold the guns in trust for them were insufficient to create a cognizable property right.

gunscriminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case is an in rem civil forfeiture action in which the U.S. government sought to forfeit 477 firearms seized from a Michigan gun store operated by claimants who had been convicted of willfully dealing in firearms without a federal license. The government moved for a ruling that it must prove at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the firearms were involved in or used in the licensing violation under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1). The claimants argued that a clear-and-convincing standard should apply because some firearms were stored in a basement vault. The court granted the motion, holding that the complaint alleged the firearms were involved in or used in the offense rather than merely intended for such use, so the preponderance standard from the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act applies and the heightened FOPA standard is not triggered.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved prisoner Leon Percival suing his appointed legal representatives from Prison Legal Services of Michigan and its director for alleged misconduct in handling a class action settlement related to prison conditions, including claims of bribery, fraud, and violations of his civil rights leading to losses of property and other harms. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's allegations failed to state viable claims under federal law, including due to doctrines like Rooker-Feldman barring review of state court decisions and lack of proper conspiracy or constitutional violation allegations.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Giasson Aerospace Science alleged that defendant RCO Engineering breached a partnership agreement by using plaintiffs' designs for luxury aircraft seats to win a contract with Gulfstream Aerospace and then excluding plaintiffs from the deal. Plaintiffs claimed misappropriation of trade secrets in specific seat-base, swivel, tracking, and related engineering features that provided advantages like reduced weight and vibration. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the trade secret claim, arguing that the asserted secrets were invalid because they had been publicly disclosed in patents or were otherwise known. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the patents did not disclose the claimed features in sufficient detail to destroy secrecy and that factual disputes remained about whether the information qualified as protectable trade secrets under Michigan law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who received automated debt collection calls from the defendant intended for a different debtor, leading to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and related Michigan statutes for statutory, actual, emotional, and financial damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing as a non-consumer for most FDCPA sections and that remaining claims failed because the plaintiff knew the calls were not for him. The court granted summary judgment on FDCPA claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g, based on undisputed facts showing the calls were erroneous and Sixth Circuit precedent limiting those provisions to consumers, but denied the motion without prejudice on the § 1692d claim and state law claims pending further briefing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a professional musician who sued a DVD producer for including footage and images of his 1974 concert performance in a commercial release without his consent, asserting claims under the Lanham Act for false designation of origin and under state law for misappropriation of his name, image, and likeness. The court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, dismissing the remaining claims after some counts had been voluntarily dismissed. The decision rested on the First Amendment protections for expressive works like the concert recording and the preemptive effect of federal copyright law over equivalent state-law claims, with the copyright in the performances held by third parties who authorized the release.

free speechpropertytorts & liability

This case involved Automotive Technologies International suing Siemens VDO Automotive and other defendants for alleged infringement of five patents related to electronic side-impact sensors in motor vehicles that deploy occupant protection systems like airbags. The defendants filed multiple motions for summary judgment, primarily seeking rulings of invalidity. The court granted summary judgment of invalidity as to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,025,379, 7,052,038, 7,070,202, and 6,850,824, while denying the remaining motions as moot. The core reasoning was that the patents were invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, following a prior Federal Circuit decision on a related patent, and were anticipated by prior art such as the '974 Mazur Patent.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, property owners sued the township and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that denial of their claimed prior non-conforming commercial storage and manufacturing use on land zoned residential violated Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process, and that a building official retaliated against them for filing suit by withholding permits. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It reasoned that the plaintiffs received notice and a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on their variance request, that Michigan zoning law provided an available appeal process from administrative determinations that the plaintiffs did not properly pursue, and that the retaliation claim lacked evidence of a final decision or causal link sufficient to state a claim.

propertycivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement dispute over self-piercing riveting technology covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,752,305. Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the patent was anticipated or rendered obvious by a 1992 prior art article describing similar riveting methods and equipment. The court denied the motion, holding that defendants had not met their burden to show the article inherently disclosed the claimed clamping force limitations or that a person of ordinary skill would have found the invention obvious based on the cited references. The decision turned on the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding anticipation and obviousness after the patent had undergone reexamination.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an African-American couple who sued a hotel operator under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming the hotel refused to contract for their wedding reception because of their race after multiple visits and calls failed to produce a meeting with the wedding coordinator. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs never interacted with the employee who had authority to book the event, received only limited holds and information from other staff, and could not produce evidence creating a genuine issue of fact that race motivated any denial of contract rights; testing evidence from the Fair Housing Center was deemed insufficient to establish discrimination in the plaintiffs’ own case.

civil rights

In Ware v. Harry, state prisoner Calvin Dwight Ware filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2003 Michigan conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and life sentence, raising four claims: a Confrontation Clause violation from admission of an unsigned witness statement, improper denial of a requested jury instruction, ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call witness Ezell Robinson, and insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the petition as to the confrontation, jury instruction, and sufficiency claims because they failed to meet the standards for relief under AEDPA, but referring the ineffective assistance claim for an evidentiary hearing to assess whether counsel's performance was deficient and caused prejudice. The court found no objections to the R&R and concluded its findings and conclusions were correct after reviewing the record.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power