District Court, E.D. Michigan — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Stevenson v. Taylor (In Re Taylor)
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011-10-26 · cited 5×
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying a Chapter 7 debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). The trustee alleged that the debtor, an attorney, omitted multiple assets—including 2009 tax refunds, accounts receivable from his law practice, gas royalties, rental income, and a potential lawsuit—from his schedules and statement of financial affairs, and failed to provide certain documents. The bankruptcy court credited the debtor's testimony that he lacked actual intent to defraud but found the omissions reflected a pattern of reckless disregard for disclosure duties, which satisfied the fraudulent-intent requirement. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court's factual finding of intent was not clearly erroneous under the applicable standard of review.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Duch v. Michigan Department of Corrections
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011-02-15
In this case, Catherine Duch, a Caucasian Lebanese female parole agent, sued the Michigan Department of Corrections and two supervisors after her termination at the end of her probationary period, alleging race, gender, and national origin discrimination, retaliation for filing a grievance, and violation of her due process rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The court denied the motion, finding that Duch had presented sufficient evidence of harassment by her supervisor, biased performance evaluations, possible lack of an impartial decisionmaker at her disciplinary hearing, and other facts that could support her discrimination, retaliation, and due process claims. The ruling was based on the standard that summary judgment is inappropriate when the evidence creates a sufficient disagreement requiring submission to a jury.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
Glasser v. COMAU, INC.
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011-02-10 · cited 1×
This case involved a petition by the NLRB's Regional Director under § 10(j) of the NLRA seeking interim injunctive relief against Comau, Inc., based on unfair labor practice charges stemming from collective bargaining negotiations with the ASW/MRCC union over health insurance changes, an announced impasse, and subsequent employee efforts to decertify the union in favor of a new employee association. The court denied the requested injunction, which sought to restore the prior union as exclusive bargaining representative and halt certain employer actions, while also denying Comau's motion to dismiss. The core reasoning was that the NLRB failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, as employee disaffection with the union predated and was not caused by Comau's conduct but instead arose from high union dues, unmet promises on jobs and training, and other internal union issues; the court further noted that negotiations continued after the impasse declaration and that decertification efforts began independently.
labor & employmentfederal power
Holder v. Curley
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-10-28 · cited 12×
The case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a prisoner challenging his conviction from a Pennsylvania state court while incarcerated in Michigan under the Interstate Corrections Compact. The petition was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, which was not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court transferred the petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, finding that the true custodian is the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and that convenience, records, witnesses, and applicable state law all favor the district of conviction. The decision relied on Supreme Court precedent from Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. and 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) regarding concurrent jurisdiction and transfers in the interests of justice.
criminal lawprocedure
Hart v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-08-19 · cited 26×
This case involved a homeowner who defaulted on her mortgage loans secured by property in Southfield, Michigan, leading to a foreclosure sale in 2007 by advertisement and expiration of the six-month statutory redemption period without redemption. The plaintiff sued the lender in 2009, claiming misrepresentation about reviewing the loan for modification, violations of federal statutes including the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and the Home Affordable Modification Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, bad faith, breach of alleged contractual obligations to modify the loan, and violation of a Michigan Attorney General consent agreement. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts, holding that the plaintiff had no remaining interest in the property after title vested, the cited federal statutes created no private right of action or enforceable contract for modification in this context, and the bad faith claim failed to allege an independent tort under Michigan law separate from any contractual dealings.
propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Klein v. City of Jackson
District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010-08-18 · cited 1×
In Klein v. City of Jackson, property owners David Klein and All Brothers Investments sued the City of Jackson over its use of an Administrative Hearings Bureau to adjudicate and impose fines for blight violations arising from unpermitted construction work, claiming violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses due to alleged bias in the hearings officer and threats of enforcement including liens and potential jail time. The district court granted the city's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the hearings officer, who must be a qualified Michigan attorney appointed for fixed terms and removable only for cause with decisions appealable to circuit court, did not present an unconstitutional risk of bias or partiality, and plaintiffs provided no evidence of disparate treatment to support an equal protection claim.
civil rightsprocedure