Nancy Garlock Edmunds

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.

taxesprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involved an employment dispute in which plaintiff Daniel Galeski, a part-time recreation associate and sound engineer for the City of Dearborn, alleged sex discrimination creating a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act after his 2008 termination. The incidents cited included his supervisor's odd behavior beginning in late 2006, such as sitting in a manner that outlined his genitals, frequent chats, delivery of DVDs featuring naked animated robots, and other interactions plaintiff found inappropriate. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff could not establish that the supervisor's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, a required element under both statutes. The court further noted that differences in vicarious liability standards between the federal and state laws were not dispositive here, and certain actions like revocation of fitness center privileges predated any internal complaint and thus could not support retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs Daniel and Stacy Thielen sued GMAC Mortgage Corp. after refinancing their home loan in 2004, asserting two federal claims and four state-law claims concerning allegedly misleading mortgage documents and disclosures, and seeking remedies including rescission and damages. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The core reasoning was that the factual allegations in the complaint were insufficient to plausibly support the claims, including inadequate pleading to establish fraudulent concealment that might toll the statute of limitations, and that the disclosures referenced in the complaint did not support viable misrepresentation or related causes of action; the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims but dismissed them on similar grounds.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves two named plaintiffs and over 100 other current and former call center employees suing Michigan Bell Telephone Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay wages for required pre-shift, post-shift, and unpaid lunch break work at several Michigan locations. The plaintiffs moved for conditional class certification under FLSA Section 216(b), approval of notice to potential class members, and an order requiring the defendant to produce contact and employment information for putative class members. The court granted the motion in full, finding that the employees performed similar customer service and sales jobs subject to uniform policies on adherence, performance reviews, and computer log-ins that supported a common claim of off-the-clock work. It approved a revised notice and required production of names, addresses, phone numbers, and employment details but not partial social security numbers.

labor & employment

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in a Chapter 7 proceeding, where the trustee objected to the debtors' amended exemptions claiming their 2008 tax refunds under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5). The bankruptcy court overruled the objection after finding that the debtors had not acted in bad faith or intentionally concealed the refunds, despite initially failing to list them due to chaotic filing circumstances. The district court affirmed, applying Sixth Circuit precedent that allows amendments to schedules at any time before case closure unless bad faith or concealment is shown. It further held that the amendment occurred before the trustee collected or noticed the refunds, so no prejudice to creditors resulted.

proceduretaxesproperty

This case is an appeal by Chapter 13 debtors from a bankruptcy court order confirming their amended plan. The debtors, who had above-median income, calculated negative monthly disposable income on Form 22C using the six-month pre-petition average and proposed a 36-month plan, but the bankruptcy court required a 60-month plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(4). The district court reversed, holding that when projected disposable income is negative, the statute does not require extending the plan to five years because there is no positive disposable income that must be applied to unsecured creditors. The court reasoned that the BAPCPA amendments mandate use of the fixed statutory formula based on historical income and IRS deductions rather than current Schedules I and J, absent evidence of changed circumstances.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Brenda Boruff appealing on behalf of her minor son Dillon, who sought Supplemental Security Income benefits claiming disability due to ADHD. The district court reviewed the ALJ's determination that the child was not disabled, which had been affirmed by the Appeals Council. The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation to uphold the ALJ's decision, finding that the ALJ failed to provide substantial evidence supporting the conclusion of less than marked impairment in the domain of acquiring and using information, and that a GAF score of 50 was inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

healthcare

This case involves a breach of contract claim brought by plaintiff ISRA Vision, AG, as assignee of a subcontract between defendant Burton Industries, Inc. and ASM Dimatec Ingeniería, S.A., for work on an automation system for General Motors. Burton refused payment of approximately $700,000, arguing that the underlying contract prohibited assignments without written consent and that any amount owed was subject to setoffs due to incomplete performance by Dimatec. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied Burton's motion in full and granted ISRA's motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the non-assignment clause did not bar enforcement of the assignment against Burton and that certain terms from the prime contract with GM were incorporated into the subcontract. The ruling addressed Michigan contract law on assignment restrictions, material alterations to contracts, and rights to setoff or recoupment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Alford, whose brother repeatedly used his identity when arrested, leading to uncorrected court and law enforcement records that caused Alford to be arrested and detained multiple times despite providing fingerprint evidence and court orders showing mistaken identity. Alford sued the Michigan State Police, 36th District Court, Third Judicial Circuit Court, Wayne County, and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through excessive force, arrest without probable cause, and failure to investigate or correct records. The court granted the state defendants' motion to dismiss in full, finding they were entitled to immunity or were not proper defendants for the claims. It granted Wayne County's motion in part and denied it in part, holding that allegations of failure to investigate or release after a warrant issued implicate the Fourteenth Amendment but not the Fourth, consistent with Baker v. McCollan, while allowing some claims to proceed. The core reasoning centered on sovereign immunity for state entities, the distinction between constitutional amendments for detention claims, and the lack of direct involvement by certain defendants in issuing warrants or making arrests.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in a Chapter 7 adversary proceeding where debtor Jennifer Cockels sought to discharge her liability as a co-signer on a student loan owed to Sallie Mae that was used for someone else's education. The bankruptcy court held that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) applied to the co-obligor, found that full repayment would impose undue hardship but that the debtor could repay a reduced amount of $9,500 without hardship, and declared that principal amount non-dischargeable while discharging the rest. On appeal, the district court reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error, affirmed that the statute covers unrelated co-signers, and upheld the partial discharge determination based on the debtor's updated income and expense information.

procedurefederal power

In this case, Omega Tool Corp. sued multiple defendants, including AlixPartners and Kirtland entities, alleging breaches of contracts and related claims arising from unpaid payments for plastic injection molds supplied to Mayco Plastics, which had entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The defendants moved to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 83.50. The district court granted the motions, finding that the claims were related to the pending bankruptcy case involving Mayco. The core reasoning was that the bankruptcy court, already familiar with Mayco's financial affairs and transactions, was best positioned to handle fact-finding efficiently for review by the district court, with diversity jurisdiction established over the action.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves CenTra, owner of the Ambassador Bridge, seeking a preliminary injunction to disqualify the Canadian law firm Gowlings and its partner David Estrin from representing the City of Windsor in opposition to CenTra's proposed second bridge span, based on alleged conflicts of interest arising from the firm's concurrent and prior representations of CenTra on related border-crossing matters. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The core reasoning was that CenTra had impliedly consented to the dual representations when hiring Gowlings in 2005, that no confidential information relevant to the current matter had been shared within the firm, and that Gowlings had implemented adequate ethical screens under Canadian professional conduct rules, which permit continued representation after considering factors like timing of screens, prejudice to the client, and public interest.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

The case involves a dispute between lender Plainfield Specialty Holdings II Inc. and borrower Children's Legal Services PLLC, a law firm that refers cerebral palsy cases, over a defaulted loan of over $16 million secured by the firm's accounts receivable and other collateral. After CLS stopped making payments in 2008 and began disbursing funds without lender consent, Plainfield moved for a preliminary injunction to freeze and redirect collateral into a court-controlled lockbox account. The court granted the motion, ordering immediate deposits of all relevant funds, notification to third parties holding collateral, and appointment of a custodian to oversee operations while allowing ordinary business expenses. The decision rested on findings that Plainfield was likely to succeed on the merits due to clear loan documents and defaults, that irreparable harm would occur if collateral continued to be disbursed, and that the balance of harms and public policy supported preserving the status quo pending full litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case was a class action brought by retirees from USW-represented plants and their union against ArvinMeritor and predecessor companies, claiming that reductions and cancellations of retiree health benefits starting in 2003 breached lifetime coverage promises in collective bargaining agreements, in violation of LMRA Section 301 and ERISA Section 502(a). The parties negotiated and jointly moved for approval of a settlement agreement resolving all claims. Following preliminary approval, class notice, a fairness hearing, and review of the record, the court granted final approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The court reasoned that the settlement was the product of informed arm's-length negotiations, eliminated litigation risks and delays, served the class as a whole better than continued proceedings, and met all applicable standards of fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

The Romantics band sued Activision and related companies over the inclusion of a cover version of their song "What I Like About You" in the Guitar Hero video game, asserting claims for violation of the right of publicity, false endorsement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The decision rested on findings that the game constitutes protected expressive speech under the First Amendment with substantial original creative elements, that a valid synchronization license authorized the song's use, that the game properly attributed the song without implying endorsement by the band, and that the plaintiffs held no ownership rights in the composition or master recording to support their claims.

free speechbusiness & regulatory