In Timco, LLC v. T & M Sales Agency, Inc., the case involved appeals from bankruptcy court orders that lifted an automatic stay in bankruptcy proceedings and remanded a state court lawsuit over unpaid commissions to state court for confirmation of an arbitration award. After the bankruptcy court granted these motions, the state court confirmed the $930,000 arbitration award in favor of T&M, and Timco did not appeal that judgment. The district court dismissed the appeals as constitutionally moot, reasoning that the entry of the final state court judgment resolved the underlying controversy, leaving no live case or controversy for federal court review under Article III. The court rejected arguments for equitable relief, noting that the purpose of the appeals—to prevent the state judgment—could no longer be achieved.
In this bankruptcy appeal, Appellees Michael and HeChung Huszti along with BAM Investment Group, LLC filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Appellants William and Anna Huszti based on a state-court consent judgment awarding them $500,000 jointly and severally. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion to dismiss, ruling that the petition failed to meet the requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) for three or more entities each holding a claim. The court reasoned that the three petitioners held only a single joint claim from the undivided judgment and therefore counted as one entity, consistent with case law interpreting the statute to require distinct creditors and to necessitate joint creditor action.
This case involved two Hispanic former employees of Bloom Roofing Systems who sued their employer for race discrimination under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, alleging they were terminated because of their race and faced a hostile work environment involving derogatory comments and unequal treatment. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending the terminations were based on legitimate business reasons: the plaintiffs lacked skills needed for journeyman-level work amid shifting roofing demands, and they were replaced by lower-paid apprentices to reduce costs. The court denied summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding that evidence of pretext—such as the plaintiffs being denied opportunities to use necessary tools while white workers were permitted to do so—allowed a factfinder to question the employer’s stated rationale. However, the court granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, dismissing it as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The decision focused on whether the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment without addressing the ultimate merits of the claims.
This case involves multiple defendants in a federal criminal prosecution who filed various pre-trial motions seeking additional disclosures from the government, including notice of Rule 404(b) evidence, exculpatory and impeachment materials under Brady and Giglio, names of confidential sources, a bill of particulars, merger of certain counts in the indictment, and a stipulation regarding a prior conviction under Old Chief. The court denied most of the motions, including those for earlier production of Jencks Act materials before the plea cutoff, names of confidential informants 60 days before trial, and merger of counts, while granting in part the request for a stipulation on Count VI. The core reasoning was that the government had already entered a stipulation agreeing to comply with its obligations under Brady, Giglio, Rule 16, and the Jencks Act on a timeline of ten days before trial, and that Sixth Circuit precedent did not require earlier or broader disclosures than those provided by statute and the stipulation.
This case concerns constitutional civil rights and state tort claims brought by Jena Kolley, a developmentally disabled adult, along with her family members, against Adult Protective Services, the Michigan Department of Human Services, various agencies, and individuals. The claims arise from allegations that defendants removed Kolley from her home, conducted an invasive interview leading to abuse accusations against her mother, filed an ex parte petition to change guardianship, and subjected her to medical examinations without proper basis or consent. The court addressed six dispositive motions seeking dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), and/or summary judgment under Rule 56. Core reasoning examined governmental immunity for state agencies acting in official functions, the adequacy of pleadings for claims like gross negligence and constitutional violations, and whether certain defendants acted under color of state law.
This case involves the United States seeking to collect a $1.25 million civil penalty imposed by the EPA on Dearborn Refining Company for RCRA violations regarding used oil and hazardous waste management. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 had expired because the claim accrued on the September 10, 2004, date of the Environmental Appeals Board's final order. The court denied the motion, holding that the claim first accrued on October 10, 2004—the deadline for payment or negotiation of an installment plan—because that was when a collectible "debt" arose under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, making the September 11, 2009, filing timely. The decision turned on the distinction between the issuance of the administrative order and the point at which the penalty became enforceable through a district court action.