The case involved credit card issuers appealing a bankruptcy court's order discharging over $28,000 in gambling-related debts that a debtor incurred through cash advances on pre-approved cards in the months before filing Chapter 7. The district court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court had misinterpreted Sixth Circuit precedent in In re Ward as requiring an assumption-of-the-risk analysis; instead, Ward only requires that issuers perform credit checks before extending credit, which the banks had done. The court remanded for the bankruptcy court to apply the nondischargeability standard of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to the facts, observing that courts generally treat gambling credit-card debts as nondischargeable under that provision.
The case involved plaintiffs, including performers and the owner of a bar called The IceHouse, seeking a preliminary injunction against Clinton Township Ordinance #291-A, which prohibited public nudity, explicit sexual activity, and compensated touching dances in establishments licensed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, following multiple arrests for topless dancing. The court granted the injunction and held the ordinance unconstitutional on its face. It reasoned that the ordinance was overbroad because it criminalized constitutionally protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment, failed the balancing test from Barnes v. Glen Theatre for content-neutral public nudity bans due to lack of sufficient governmental interest, and could not be saved by Twenty-First Amendment authority since the township lacked delegated power from the state or MLCC to enforce such regulations. The court also found exceptional circumstances justifying federal intervention despite pending state criminal and civil proceedings.
In this case, plaintiff Ivey sued vessel owner Baronia Shipping Company for injuries sustained while unloading cargo. Baronia filed a third-party complaint against time charterer Interbulk Ltd. for breach of the Charter Party Agreement and/or negligence. Interbulk moved to sever and stay the third-party proceedings pending arbitration under the agreement's arbitration clause and the Federal Arbitration Act. The court granted the motion, ruling that the broad arbitration clause covers the dispute, the FAA requires a stay, and neither the indemnification provisions nor the use of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(c) third-party claim creates an exception to arbitration. The court noted that the plaintiff, not being a party to the agreement, would not be prejudiced by the arbitration between the third parties.
This case was a class action lawsuit brought by the UAW and individual state employees against Michigan and its Civil Service Commission, alleging that the state's classification and pay systems (the older Position Comparison System and the later Benchmark System) intentionally discriminated on the basis of sex by assigning lower wages to predominantly female job classifications, in violation of Title VII. The plaintiffs focused on specific classes and presented statistical and circumstantial evidence of discriminatory wage assignments. The court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to prove intentional discrimination. The core reasoning was that the systems were implemented consistently using neutral criteria like labor market data and economic factors, alongside affirmative action measures such as expanded career ladders and collective bargaining rights, which contradicted any pattern of sex-based bias.
The case involved plaintiffs suing defendants for willful copyright infringement of two workplace tests (the T.A. Survey and E.S. Survey) under the Copyright Act of 1976. The court had previously awarded $50,000 in statutory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages but, on defendants' motion, amended the judgment to strike the punitive damages because they are unavailable for statutory copyright claims under the 1976 Act and are limited to common law actions. Plaintiffs also moved to multiply the statutory damages award for each infringed work, prompting the court to examine whether the two tests formed separate works or a single compilation under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), using a functional analysis of their distinct objectives and purposes to decide if separate awards were required.
The case involved a plaintiff seeking to enjoin the IRS from levying on her bank account to collect a $23,648.15 assessment under IRC § 6672 for unpaid corporate withholding and FICA taxes, based on her alleged status as a responsible person of Cab & Chassis, Inc. The court granted the IRS's motion to dismiss the action. The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421, bars suits to restrain tax collection, and although the plaintiff presented facts suggesting she might prevail on the merits by showing lack of responsibility or willfulness, she failed to satisfy the equitable exception under Enochs v. Williams Packing because she had an adequate remedy at law by paying the tax and suing for a refund.
