This case involves a Michigan law firm and its clients suing the IRS after the agency levied funds in the firm's IOLTA account to collect the attorney's personal back taxes for 2004 and 2005. The court dismissed the law firm's claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 with prejudice for lack of standing, dismissed claims under §§ 7432 and 7433 without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed claims under §§ 6325 and 6343 with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a viable cause of action, and denied the motion for summary judgment as premature. The reasoning focused on statutory prerequisites for suits against the IRS, the law firm's disclaimer of any ownership interest in the funds, and the need for discovery before resolving the remaining claims. Only the clients' wrongful levy claim under § 7426 proceeds.
This case was a judicial review under ERISA of an insurance plan administrator's denial of higher life insurance and accidental death benefits to the beneficiary of a deceased employee, Mark Lowe. The benefits amount turned on which eligibility group Lowe belonged to based on his annual earnings, with the administrator placing him in the lower group and paying accordingly after his promotion and salary increase. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the case. The court applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review because the plan granted discretion to the administrator and found the decision to be a reasonable interpretation supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
The case concerned $100,000 in currency seized from defendant Nassif Jawad Tarraf at Detroit airport for failing to declare more than $10,000 when leaving the country, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5316; Tarraf pled guilty and the government sought criminal forfeiture of the funds under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Thirty-nine third parties filed ancillary petitions claiming ownership of portions of the money as deposits they had given Tarraf's travel agency for an upcoming Hajj pilgrimage. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss all petitions and entered a final forfeiture order. It held that the petitioners lacked standing because, even accepting their allegations as true, they failed to assert a cognizable legal interest in the property under Michigan law, such as a vested or superior interest or grounds for a constructive trust, and were instead akin to unsecured creditors of the defendant.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in an adversary proceeding where Astro Building Supplies sought a ruling that a debt owed by Slavik for construction supplies was nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) due to alleged violations of the Michigan Building Contract Fund Act. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to Slavik and denial of Astro's cross-motion, while also denying Astro's motion to compel as moot. The core reasoning was that Astro maintained an open account with payments applied to a running balance across hundreds of projects rather than tying supplies and payments to specific jobs, so no fiduciary duty under the MBTFA was triggered that would prevent discharge.
In this subrogation action, Meemic Insurance Company sued Hewlett-Packard Company for negligence, products liability, and breach of implied warranty after a house fire that Meemic attributed to an alleged defect in the AC power adapter of an HP printer owned by its insureds. The court granted HP's motion for summary judgment. The ruling rested on the conclusion that the plaintiff's expert opinions were speculative and failed to provide sufficient evidence linking any defect in the adapter to the fire's origin or cause, as both parties' investigations left the cause undetermined and showed no signs of overheating or malfunction prior to the incident.
In this case, former and current state racing stewards sued Michigan racing officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their hours and benefits were reduced and two plaintiffs were terminated in retaliation for supporting a political candidate for governor, in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The court addressed a motion to dismiss claims against one defendant in his official capacity on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It granted the motion in part by dismissing the requests for reinstatement and a declaration that past actions were unlawful, but denied it in part by allowing a claim for prospective injunctive relief to prevent future retaliation. The core reasoning was that the Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity claims seeking retrospective relief, but the Ex parte Young exception permits claims for prospective relief to end ongoing violations of federal law; reinstatement was unavailable because the defendant lacked statutory authority to order it.