Patrick J. Duggan

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case was a purported class action by several homeowners against mortgage servicers, banks, trustees, and law firms, alleging improper collection of attorney fees exceeding statutory limits, negative escrow accounts for property taxes, and violations of federal statutes including RESPA, FDCPA, TILA, and RICO, along with state-law claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty arising from mortgage administration and foreclosure proceedings. The court considered motions to dismiss some defendants for untimely service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and all defendants on the merits of the claims. It concluded that a one-day service delay did not warrant dismissal because it would needlessly delay the case, but dismissed the FDCPA claims as time-barred by the statute of limitations and rejected other claims for lacking a private right of action, failing to meet statutory definitions such as "debt collector," or conflicting with the terms of the mortgage agreements.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerned a contract dispute between Aleris Aluminum Canada L.P. and Valeo, Inc., arising from their ongoing business relationship in which Aleris supplied rolled aluminum products to Valeo for use in manufacturing parts for automakers. Aleris alleged breach of contract, while Valeo filed counterclaims; the court addressed Aleris's motion for summary judgment on these claims. The court granted the motion, holding that no requirements contract existed because the purchase orders, forecasts, and business agreements did not obligate Valeo to purchase specific quantities and expressly permitted termination for convenience, with actual purchases instead controlled by individual releases. Releases and spot-buy arrangements, rather than the overarching documents, formed the operative contracts between the parties.

business & regulatory

The case was a class action lawsuit brought by former hourly and salaried employees of Philips Display Components Company who retired on or after July 1, 2001, after their facility was transferred to LG Philips Displays USA, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the LMRA and ERISA and sought a declaratory judgment requiring the defendants to continue providing retiree health care benefits, along with injunctive relief and damages. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding they had no obligation to provide the benefits. The core reasoning was that the retirees were LGP employees at the time of retirement and thus ineligible under the PENAC plans, there was no contractual intent to vest lifetime benefits, and any fiduciary claims were time-barred by the plaintiffs' 2001 knowledge of the plan transfer.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a bankruptcy trustee suing a creditor that had sold injection molding machines to the debtor for attempting to suppress bidding on those assets in the estate by threatening not to provide servicing or parts, in order to buy them cheaply and recover on its unsecured claim. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the trustee on the claim that this conduct violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6), and upheld the resulting injunction requiring the creditor to provide servicing at ordinary commercial rates through 2012. The core reasoning was that the creditor's refusal to service was not a standalone decision but was used as leverage tied to recovering its pre-petition debt, which constituted an improper attempt to obtain possession of estate property in violation of the stay.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a student with cognitive impairments enrolled in Oakland University's non-degree OPTIONS program who sued the university and officials after being denied on-campus dormitory housing, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, Rehabilitation Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act through claims of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, along with a request for a permanent injunction, by first outlining the legal standards requiring the absence of genuine issues of material fact and success on the merits for injunctive relief. It examined the factual background, including the plaintiff's enrollment and the program's housing rationale, then analyzed whether the plaintiff qualified as a student for purposes of the housing benefit and whether an accommodation was required, drawing on precedents such as Barnett to frame the inquiry around access to the housing program rather than degree-granting enrollment. The court addressed procedural matters like defendant substitution and clarified that the relevant qualification was for housing access with or without accommodation.

civil rights

This case involves a contract dispute in which Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company provided prescription drug coverage to employees and retirees of the City of River Rouge under a policy requiring monthly premium payments in advance, with a 45-day grace period. After a broker named Korejsza, appointed by the city, embezzled most of the city's payments to the insurers, Penn Life sued for $163,472.20 in unpaid premiums on claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied the city's motion for summary judgment and granted Penn Life's motion in part, finding the city liable because it had introduced Korejsza into the payment process. However, the court denied summary judgment on damages due to remaining factual disputes over the reasonableness of Penn Life's delay in terminating coverage or bypassing the broker and over when the city received actual notice of the delinquency.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involves a class of retirees and surviving spouses from the J.I. Case Company (later CNH) who sued under the LMRA and ERISA to enforce lifetime, fully funded health care benefits promised in collective bargaining agreements with the UAW. The court had previously ruled that the agreements grant these benefits and require defendants to pay the full costs. After a trial on CNH's accord and satisfaction defense based on a 1998 union agreement, the court rejected the defense, concluding that the union lacked authority to bind retirees because they are not part of the bargaining unit and active employees' interests conflict with those of retirees.

labor & employmenthealthcarefederal power

This case involved a challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits, where the plaintiff alleged he became disabled in January 1995 due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome but was insured for benefits only through March 2000. The ALJ determined that the plaintiff was not disabled because he retained the capacity to perform a significant number of other jobs, rejecting the argument that the Medical-Vocational guidelines for persons of advanced age should apply given that the plaintiff turned 55 just eleven months after his insured status expired. The magistrate judge recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that no error occurred in the age categorization analysis. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after no objections were filed, thereby affirming the denial of benefits.

healthcare

The case involves a plaintiff who applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning in 2001, with multiple ALJ hearings resulting in findings that he was not disabled under the five-step evaluation process, leading to this federal court challenge to the Commissioner's final denial. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the matter under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The core reasoning was that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert failed to account for the plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace when assessing ability to perform other work, and that a January 2008 letter from Dr. Freydl should be considered on remand for its potential impact on the residual functional capacity and disability determination.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved the Detroit International Bridge Company seeking to enjoin the Federal Highway Administration from disclosing a 2007 inspection report of the Ambassador Bridge that had been provided to state authorities under a private contract. The plaintiff claimed that release in response to a FOIA request would violate FOIA exemptions, the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act, and contractual confidentiality provisions. The court denied the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, concluding that the report had already been disclosed, the action was moot as to injunctive relief, and the reverse-FOIA claim had not been properly pled under the Administrative Procedure Act with a showing that the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a plaintiff challenging the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits, claiming disability due to a back injury and other conditions since January 2003. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which found that the ALJ's credibility determination on the severity of the plaintiff's pain lacked support from substantial evidence in the record. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's denial in part and ordered a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the magistrate's analysis. Neither party objected to the report and recommendation, and the court noted that the remand was not based on new evidence.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the trustee of Mathson Industries' estate sued Negri Bossi USA over its alleged efforts to suppress bids at an auction of nine unpaid-for injection molding machines by informing potential buyers it would not service the machines if purchased from the estate. The complaint asserted violations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 363(n) and 362 after dropping earlier Sherman Act and tortious interference claims. The defendant moved to withdraw the reference of the case from bankruptcy court to the district court, contending both mandatory and permissive withdrawal were required. The district court denied the motion, holding that the claims were core bankruptcy matters created by Title 11 provisions that did not necessitate consideration of other federal laws and that judicial efficiency and other factors weighed against withdrawal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved CNH America suing the UAW union over a 1998 collective bargaining agreement related to retiree health insurance benefits. CNH claimed the union breached the agreement by failing to release the company from liability for certain costs and misrepresented its authority to negotiate on behalf of retirees, asserting claims under the Labor Management Relations Act and Wisconsin state law for breach of warranty and misrepresentation. The court granted the union's motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that the LMRA claim failed as a matter of law and that the state law claims were preempted by federal labor law.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case arose from the criminal prosecution of Michigan State Police Trooper Jay Harrison Morningstar for second-degree murder and manslaughter after he fatally shot an unarmed man during an on-duty encounter in Detroit; Morningstar was acquitted and then sued Detroit Police Officer Tyrine Wheatley for malicious prosecution, alleging that Wheatley gave false and misleading statements about the incident that contributed to the charges. A jury found for Morningstar and awarded him $500,000 in damages. Defendant Wheatley moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing among other things that his testimony at the preliminary examination was protected by testimonial immunity and had not caused the prosecution to proceed. The court addressed the motion by examining the timing of the immunity defense, the content of the officer's statements as shown by video evidence and expert testimony, and the legal requirements for malicious prosecution, including whether the defendant initiated or continued the prosecution.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability