Horace Weldon Gilmore

The case involves plaintiffs R.S.S.W., Inc. (doing business as Goose Island Brewery) and its owner suing the City of Keego Harbor and various city officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants engaged in a campaign of harassment—including excessive police scrutiny, zoning enforcement actions, and other measures—to pressure the brewpub into adopting an 11:00 p.m. closing time instead of its permitted 2:00 a.m. hours, in violation of constitutional rights. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or alternatively for summary judgment. The court denied the summary judgment motion as premature because discovery was incomplete and, applying the liberal 12(b)(6) standard that accepts all factual allegations as true and requires only that a complaint state a viable legal theory, found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an official municipal policy or custom to support liability against the city. The core reasoning emphasized that the court's role at this stage is limited to assessing the sufficiency of the pleadings, not weighing evidence or resolving factual disputes.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedurefree speech

The case involves a dispute between Physician Care, P.C. and Caremark, Inc. arising from their joint home infusion services partnerships in Michigan, subsequent buyout and employment agreements, and fallout from a federal criminal investigation into Caremark's billing and referral practices. Caremark pleaded guilty to mail fraud charges related to kickbacks and improper reimbursements, while Physician Care also faced related proceedings. The court addressed motions to exclude evidence of these plea agreements in the civil litigation, which centers on claims such as breach of employment and fiduciary duties. It denied the motions, holding that the pleas are relevant and admissible because they directly bear on the parties' conduct and no adequate substitute exists, even if the evidence is unfavorable.

business & regulatorycriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Cyberlogic sought a defense from its insurer Farmington under a commercial general liability policy covering advertising injury for claims brought against it in the Wonderware lawsuit. The underlying Wonderware action alleged copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and related counts arising from Cyberlogic's development of a software driver substantially identical to one it had created earlier for Wonderware. The court held that Farmington had no duty to defend because the Wonderware complaint did not allege an advertising injury within the policy's definition. The core reasoning was that the claimed injuries did not arise out of an offense committed in the course of advertising Cyberlogic's goods, as any infringement existed independently of advertising activities and lacked the required causal connection to the insured's advertising.

business & regulatory

This case was a class action securities lawsuit in which investors who purchased BEAR securities sued PFS Investments and Primerica, alleging liability for their investment losses; the parties reached a $7.5 million settlement approved by the district court. Plaintiffs' counsel sought one-third of the settlement fund as attorney fees, and after review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court adopted the recommendation to award the co-lead attorneys 20% of the settlement fund (totaling $1.5 million, inclusive of costs and fees to other counsel) under the percentage-of-the-fund method. The core reasoning was that in common-fund cases like this securities class action, courts must ensure fee awards are reasonable under the circumstances, with either the lodestar or percentage method available, and that the 20% figure appropriately balanced the work performed against concerns over excessive fees in unopposed class settlements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Brian Maurice Brown, who was arrested in June 1992 in connection with a cocaine conspiracy investigation but faced a multi-year delay before federal prosecution proceeded. After an indictment was returned in December 1992 and unsealed in February 1993, the government failed to notify Brown's attorney as requested and instead pursued independent arrest efforts that proved unsuccessful; Brown was not taken into federal custody until 1996 following a state arrest, with the case remaining dormant for extended periods due to prosecutorial inattention. Brown moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting violations of his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right (the sole issue addressed), the Speedy Trial Act, due process, and Rule 48(b). The court granted the motion, applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and finding that the length of the delay, the government's negligence, Brown's assertion of his rights, and resulting prejudice—including the death of an exculpatory witness and presumptive impairment from excessive delay—violated the Constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Douglas Switzer sued his former employers in state court for breach of various employment contracts related to reinstatement, severance, resignation rights, and benefits, plus age discrimination under Michigan law and promissory estoppel. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that two of the contract claims implicated rights under ERISA-governed employee benefit plans, creating federal jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that Counts II and IV sought to recover or clarify benefits under ERISA plans and were therefore preempted by ERISA's Section 502(a), which provides the exclusive federal remedy and basis for removal. The court reasoned that resolving those claims would require interpreting the terms, eligibility, and administration of the ERISA plans, and it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case was a civil forfeiture action by the United States against a 1990 GMC Jimmy vehicle owned by Christian Key, who had been convicted of drug felonies after using the vehicle to transport cocaine in a hidden compartment. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the claimant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that the vehicle was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) because the government established probable cause that it facilitated drug trafficking and the claimant offered no rebuttal. The court further ruled that notice of the proceedings was adequate, as the government sent multiple notices to addresses associated with the claimant, followed up on returned mail, and the claimant ultimately received notice and filed a claim.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involves Michigan homeowners who obtained high-interest, high-fee mortgage loans from or assigned to Fleet entities, with some originated by the moving defendants Birmingham, Express, and Sterling; the plaintiffs alleged an unlawful lending scheme involving improper origination practices, fees, and disclosures under federal and state law. Several defendants moved to dismiss claims related to the origination phase under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 9(b) for insufficient particularity in fraud allegations. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing with prejudice the unjust enrichment claim against Birmingham and Sterling, as well as the gross negligence and unconscionability claims against all movants, while denying dismissal of the Mortgage Act and common law fraud claims on the ground that the allegations sufficiently stated violations of disclosure and licensing requirements when taken as true.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a multiemployer pension fund's effort to collect over $1.3 million in unpaid withdrawal liability under ERISA and the MPPAA from various related corporate and individual defendants after one employer, Wilson, withdrew from the plan in 1984. The fund had settled with the Wilson defendants for a fraction of the assessed amount following arbitration, but sought the balance from other entities alleged to be part of the same controlled group, including the Melody defendants. The court held that the settlement agreement released only the Wilson entities and did not bar claims against the remaining defendants, who remained jointly and severally liable as controlled group members. It rejected the defendants' laches defense, finding no inexcusable delay by the fund, and upheld the fund's damages calculation as the defendants offered no contrary evidence. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on the withdrawal liability claims and dismissed a related count as preempted by ERISA.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved product liability claims by plaintiffs Chad Austin, Dawn Austin, and Citizens Insurance Company against Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., alleging that a defect in one of the defendant's televisions caused a fire, based on negligence in manufacturing and design (including failure to warn) as well as breach of express and implied warranties. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending summary judgment for the defendant. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of any specific defect or that the fire originated in the television, could not rely on circumstantial evidence or res ipsa loquitur due to lack of supporting expert testimony and destruction of other potential ignition sources by the insurance company, and thus could not establish causation beyond mere conjecture under Michigan law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the Detroit Free Press's motion for reconsideration of an order denying access to sealed documents, including search warrants and supporting affidavits, in a civil forfeiture action concerning certain real property in Romulus. The court denied the motion, reaffirming its prior ruling that the common law right of access, rather than the First Amendment right of access, applies to such materials. The decision followed the majority of circuit courts in holding there is no tradition of public accessibility to warrant proceedings and that the newspaper failed to make a specific showing of need to overcome the seal. The court reviewed in camera affidavits from the government supporting continued sealing due to an ongoing criminal investigation and found no new information warranting a different outcome.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

Eddie Bryant was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm after police executed a search warrant at his Detroit home and seized four guns. The court granted his motion to suppress the evidence and his post-search statements, ruling that the supporting affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for probable cause. Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Illinois v. Gates, the confidential informant’s tip lacked adequate detail about the alleged gun possession and was corroborated only as to the defendant’s address and prior conviction, not the criminal activity itself. The court also held that the Leon good-faith exception did not apply because a reasonably trained officer would have recognized the affidavit’s deficiencies.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case arose from a classroom dispute between adjunct professor Anne Bowers and student Jack Reutter at Schoolcraft College, after which Reutter and another student made counter-allegations of inappropriate comments and harassment by Bowers, leading to a letter being placed in her personnel file. Bowers sued the college and various administrators, asserting federal claims (counts 3-8) including alleged violations of her constitutional rights and breach of implied contract, along with state claims against Reutter. The court granted summary judgment to the college defendants on counts 3-8, finding no protected speech interest that outweighed institutional concerns, no implied contract from the student catalog, and no other viable federal claims, while denying a motion to strike and remanding the remaining state-law claims to Wayne County Circuit Court.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speechprocedure

This case involves claims by Miss Dig System, Inc., a nonprofit providing free utility line marking services in Michigan, that defendants infringed its registered "Miss Dig" trademark and related slogan by acquiring and using the toll-free number 1-800-647-7344, which shares the core digits with plaintiff's 1-810-MISS-DIG number and resulted in intercepted calls from confused customers. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, along with related state law claims, after the court had earlier granted a preliminary injunction. Following the Sixth Circuit's reversal in the similar Holiday Inns case, which held that mere ownership or use of a numerically similar telephone number without advertising an alphanumeric translation of the plaintiff's mark does not constitute "use" of the trademark or create a likelihood of confusion, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The decision emphasized that liability requires active promotion of the infringing alphanumeric form, which defendants had not done, and rejected additional arguments about public safety or plaintiff's nonprofit status as unsupported by authority.

business & regulatory

This case involves three investor lawsuits (Fournier, Vennittilli, and Sullivan) against Primerica defendants arising from sales of oil and gas investment programs that the SEC had determined operated as a Ponzi scheme. The plaintiffs alleged claims including aiding and abetting securities fraud, negligent hiring and supervision, violations of securities laws, RICO, and related state law claims based on Primerica's employment of the primary seller. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) standards, dismissing claims such as aiding and abetting (citing Central Bank of Denver), negligent hiring, and certain securities violations for failure to state a claim, while denying dismissal on negligent supervision and control person liability in some instances where underlying violations were adequately pled. The decisions turned on whether the complaints sufficiently alleged facts supporting each cause of action and complied with precedents limiting secondary liability in securities cases.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between Toyota Tsusho Corporation, the beneficiary of an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Comerica Bank, over the bank's dishonor of four draws for CD-ROM shipments made in March 1994. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion, ordering Comerica to pay $1,995,756 plus interest for the draws. The core reasoning was that under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the bank's notices of rejection were insufficient as they failed to identify the non-conforming documents (air waybills dated after February 7, 1994) or explain the deficiencies, estopping the bank from relying on those issues to dishonor the presentments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a class action by Michigan inmates challenging the retroactive application of 1992 amendments to state parole laws that reduced the frequency of parole review hearings for those serving life or long indeterminate sentences, claiming a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the amendments were unconstitutional as applied to inmates convicted from 1977 to 1992 with parolable life or long indeterminate sentences (and certain mandatory life cases after 1982) because they changed the schedule of hearings that could affect opportunities for early release, increasing the punishment after the crimes were committed. The court found no ex post facto violation for inmates convicted before 1977 or specific 1977-1982 mandatory life cases, where the prior hearing practices or eligibility rules were not comparably altered. It ordered the parole board to reinstate the pre-1992 hearing schedules for the affected subclasses.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between Auto Club Insurance and its salaried sales representative Donna Whaley over whether the company must pay commissions to salaried agents for placing auto insurance through the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility under state law. Whaley sued under RICO, alleging the company's policy of retaining those commissions constituted mail fraud and extortion. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the disagreement was a good-faith statutory interpretation issue that did not amount to racketeering activity and that there was no sufficient connection between any alleged misconduct and the management of an enterprise as required by RICO.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge under the Fair Housing Act to the City of Taylor's refusal to permit a for-profit adult foster care home for twelve elderly disabled residents to operate in a single-family residential district. After remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court determined that the City intentionally discriminated against handicapped individuals and failed to make reasonable accommodations as required by the Act. The court reasoned that the city's zoning ordinances effectively excluded such homes, which provide necessary care in a family-like setting beneficial to residents with dementia, without sufficient justification. As a result, the court issued an injunction requiring the city to amend its ordinances, awarded damages to the operators for lost revenue, and imposed a civil penalty.

civil rights

This case is a declaratory judgment action by FFOC Co. and Michigan resident Lynn Ledford against German defendants von Schwabe and Kulakowski, along with Invent A.G. and Cemix A.G., stemming from a business partnership dispute over ownership, assignment, and licensing of a patent for an automobile air filter. The partners had formed entities including Filtrona (later FFOC) and Invent to develop and market the invention, with disagreements arising over an alleged exclusive licensing agreement to FFOC for North America and errors in naming inventors on the patent application filed in 1989. Plaintiffs sought specific performance of the licensing deal or rescission of the assignment to Invent, plus correction of inventorship. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to join necessary parties, prompting the court to examine Michigan's long-arm statutes for exercising jurisdiction over the foreign defendants based on their business contacts and negotiations in the state.

procedurebusiness & regulatory