Barbara Kloka Hackett

This case involved a dispute over enforcement of a prepayment premium provision in a mortgage note for a $26.75 million loan from defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance to plaintiff Atlantic Ltd. Partnership. Plaintiff prepaid the loan early in 1998 and challenged the $503,114 premium as unreasonable and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the premium reasonable at roughly 2% of principal, enforceable per the contract's formula, and that defendant did not violate good faith by insisting on the agreed terms.

business & regulatoryproperty

Rosa Parks sued Outkast, LaFace Records, and related parties after they released a rap song titled "Rosa Parks" on the album Aquemini, alleging unauthorized use of her name in connection with music containing profanity and derogatory content. The case centered on whether Parks could block the song title under trademark, unfair competition, or right-of-publicity theories despite the work being an expressive artistic creation not literally about her or the Civil Rights Movement. The court denied Parks's motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief, instead granting summary judgment to the defendants. It reasoned that the defendants had not used her name to falsely suggest endorsement or to misappropriate her own recorded performances, and that the First Amendment protected artistic use of her name in this context.

free speechcivil rights

In Rice v. Trippett, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1978 guilty plea conviction for second-degree murder and life sentence, after exhausting various state post-conviction proceedings. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which applies to petitions filed after April 24, 1996. The court denied the motion, holding that the petition was filed within the limitations period because the time during properly filed state collateral review applications is tolled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), and the untolled periods between April 24, 1996, and the filing date totaled less than one year. The decision rested on the principle that prisoners whose convictions became final before AEDPA's effective date receive a reasonable one-year grace period, adjusted for tolling during state proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over title to property in Highland Park, Michigan, where the plaintiff purchased the land after a city tax sale for unpaid property taxes, seeking to eliminate a prior federal tax lien held by the United States for the original owner's unpaid income taxes. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the federal tax lien remains valid because the plaintiff failed to provide the required notice of the nonjudicial tax sale under Internal Revenue Code § 7425. The court also rejected the plaintiff's request to stay the proceedings due to the bankruptcy of its parent company, finding that the automatic stay provisions do not apply since the United States is not seeking to possess or control the property. As a result, the case was remanded to state court after the United States was dismissed as a party.

propertytaxesfederal power

Ella Bartell sued multiple Michigan state agencies, officials, and private foster care providers after the Jackson County Probate Court terminated her parental rights to her son William in 1996, alleging violations of her civil rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act based on inadequate services and the handling of her case. The district court granted summary judgment to the nine remaining defendants on the federal claims. The court reasoned that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had provided extensive reunification services consistent with state and federal law, the probate court's findings of Bartell's inability to care for William were supported by evidence of her emotional and intellectual limitations, and no violation of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act occurred. The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed an unserved defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

civil rightsfamily law

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty in 1997 to conspiracy to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and later moved in 1998 to vacate his sentence, arguing that the district's jury selection plan unconstitutionally discriminated by race in forming the grand jury that indicted him, relying on the Sixth Circuit's Ovalle decision. The court denied the motion. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) and precedents such as Davis v. United States, claims of grand jury defects must be raised before trial or are waived absent a showing of cause; the defendant failed to establish cause, as neither counsel's failure to recognize the claim nor arguments about novelty or futility qualified under Murray v. Carrier and Bousley v. United States. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a denied constitutional right.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, plaintiffs sued their former employer for failing to provide notice of rights to continued health insurance benefits under ERISA and COBRA after the termination of employment. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, ruling that the claims must proceed to arbitration instead of litigation. The decision rested on the Federal Arbitration Act, which requires courts to enforce valid arbitration agreements by directing parties to arbitration, with any doubts resolved in favor of arbitrability. The court found that the parties' 1991 arbitration agreement covered the ERISA and COBRA claims, as evidenced by the plaintiff's separate submission of identical claims to NASD arbitration. It further held that ERISA's provisions do not preempt enforcement of such arbitration agreements, aligning with the majority of courts that have considered the issue.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involves a dispute under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 regarding an interconnection agreement between AT&T and Ameritech Michigan, which was arbitrated and approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission. AT&T filed two complaints in federal court challenging the agreement and the commission's orders; the first was filed before the final approval and the second after. The court dismissed the first case as premature but denied the commissioners' motion to dismiss the second case, allowing the claims against them to proceed because federal law permits suits against state officials to enforce compliance with federal statutes.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves Herman Miller's claims that Palazzetti infringed on the trade dress of its Eames lounge chair and ottoman under the Lanham Act by producing replicas. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the trade dress claims. It reasoned that the design was neither inherently distinctive nor had acquired secondary meaning in the marketplace, as there was no evidence of consumer association with the source or effective source-identifying advertising. Therefore, the design was not protectable trade dress, and the claims were dismissed.

business & regulatory

This case is a products liability action in which plaintiff David Lyall and his wife sued the retailer and manufacturers of chlorine tablets and their container after the lid of a 40-pound container exploded due to nitrogen trichloride gas buildup, causing Lyall to lose an eye and suffer severe burns and scarring. The complaint alleged negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and loss of consortium based on alleged defects in the product design, container, and warnings. Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of preemption under FIFRA and HMTA federal packaging and labeling requirements, with one defendant also arguing it had followed supplied specifications. The court granted the motions in part, dismissing the failure-to-warn, labeling, express warranty, and negligent manufacturing claims, but denied them in part as to the design defect claims, reasoning that those claims were not preempted and that genuine issues existed over whether the specifications were obviously dangerous.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves an eviction action brought by the United States government against defendants who resided on a farm in Michigan that was foreclosed upon after defaulting on a government-backed loan from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The defendants had leased the property back from the government but fell behind on rent payments, leading to multiple administrative appeals regarding lease terms and offers, which were ultimately resolved in favor of the government's actions. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding that the government acted within its statutory and regulatory authority, the administrative decisions had a rational basis, and there was no evidence of impropriety in the appraisal process or foreclosure proceedings.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Theartis Armstrong, who was terminated by Chrysler Corporation after a physical altercation with a coworker at an assembly plant and whose union grievance was later withdrawn. Armstrong sued Chrysler for wrongful termination in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and the union for breaching its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants. It reasoned that the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was not arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory, as it was based on eyewitness accounts and precedent, and that Chrysler had just cause to discharge Armstrong for fighting, which violated its standards of conduct.

labor & employment

This ERISA case concerns plaintiff Joyce Walker's claim for accidental death and dismemberment benefits under her late husband's employer-provided policy after he died from injuries in a 1995 car crash. The decedent had a blood-alcohol level of .22 and crashed at high speed into a building; MetLife paid basic life insurance but denied AD&D coverage, concluding the death was not an "accident" because it was a foreseeable result of drunk driving and was excluded as self-inflicted injury. The court granted MetLife's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, applying federal common law standards from Wickman v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. under which a death is accidental only if the insured did not know or should not have known that serious injury or death was substantially likely to result from the conduct. The court found that a reasonable person in the decedent's position would have recognized the high likelihood of harm from driving while intoxicated at more than twice the legal limit, rendering MetLife's denial neither arbitrary nor capricious.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved former Dean Witter employees Gloria and Jeffrey Grant who sued their employer after resigning, claiming they were constructively discharged due to the company's interference with the distribution of assets from a partnership they had formed with a co-worker. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add claims for tortious interference with contract against a branch manager and retaliatory discharge, while the defendant moved to dismiss or compel arbitration under the employment agreements. The court denied the motion to amend, finding the proposed claims futile because the Michigan Partnership Act provisions cited did not establish a public policy protecting employees and because at-will employees cannot base a claim solely on constructive discharge. It granted the motion to dismiss the original complaint on the ground that constructive discharge is not an independent cause of action under Michigan law but merely a defense requiring an underlying claim, which was absent here.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerns a dispute between the surviving mother (as personal representative) of a deceased man and his ex-wife over entitlement to various assets following their 1994 divorce, including ERISA-governed life insurance policies, a 401k plan, joint brokerage and investment accounts, and bank trust accounts. The plaintiff sought to enforce provisions of the default divorce judgment that extinguished each party's rights as beneficiary or joint owner of the other's assets. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, awarding the ERISA insurance policies, 401k, and certain joint brokerage accounts to the plaintiff's estate while awarding the bank trust accounts to the ex-wife. The core reasoning was that the divorce judgment's insurance and pension provisions clearly terminated beneficiary rights on the ERISA plans and related accounts, but its property division language did not unambiguously revoke the ex-wife's interests in the trust accounts, which had been created with manifest intent to benefit her and were not specifically addressed in the decree.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned petitioners The Ohio Company and Andrew Wilhelm's request to enjoin the Nemeceks from pursuing arbitration claims before the NYSE alleging unsuitable limited partnership investments made from 1986 to 1988. The court granted the motion, dismissing the arbitration claims and permanently enjoining the NYSE proceedings. Jurisdiction was based on diversity, and the court held that eligibility for arbitration under NYSE Rule 608 is a question for judges, not arbitrators. The claims were filed more than six years after the investments, starting the eligibility clock from the dates of purchase rather than discovery of injury, and the Nemeceks did not sufficiently plead fraudulent concealment to warrant any tolling. As a result, the claims were ineligible for arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a contractual dispute between Renaissance Center office complex tenants and the owner and managers over whether electric usage was properly metered and billed, with partial-floor tenants claiming overbilling due to floor-level meters rather than individual office meters. The tenants asserted federal RICO claims based on alleged overcharges and misrepresentations in billing statements, along with supplemental state-law claims, while one related action involved a counterclaim and third-party complaint in a back-rent suit. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the RICO claims, finding no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or a RICO enterprise, as the dispute concerned lease interpretation and contract compliance rather than criminal conduct, and some defendants were passive investors not subject to RICO liability under Reves v. Ernst & Young. One case was dismissed for improper removal by defendants. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over $26,000 in ERISA-governed life insurance benefits from a GM employee plan after Lawrence J. Larson died. His ex-wife Diana J. Barlow, the designated beneficiary on the plan documents, claimed the proceeds, while his daughter Pam Wheeler claimed them for the estate based on a divorce decree in which Barlow had waived all interest in Larson's life insurance policies. Metropolitan Life Insurance, as plan administrator, sought a declaratory judgment on the proper recipient. The court denied summary judgment to MetLife and Barlow but granted it to Wheeler, holding that the divorce decree's specific waiver of beneficiary rights in life insurance policies was effective and controlled the outcome. The reasoning relied on Sixth Circuit precedent recognizing that a knowing, voluntary waiver in a divorce settlement that expressly references ERISA plan benefits supersedes the original designation.

family lawlabor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff who sued his former employer in Michigan state court under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming age discrimination and retaliation that resulted in constructive discharge tied to modifications in pension and health insurance benefits. The defendant removed the action to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by ERISA and thus removable. Following a Sixth Circuit ruling that limited ERISA's complete preemption to claims seeking to enforce rights under an ERISA plan (rather than ordinary preemption under section 1144), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, finding that the state-law discrimination claims did not qualify for federal jurisdiction under ERISA section 1132.

civil rightsprocedurefederal powerlabor & employment

The case involved a dispute between two Italian restaurants over similar names, with Passalacqua Corporation (doing business as Mario’s) suing Restaurant Management II, Inc. (doing business as East Side Mario’s) in state court for common law unfair competition based on alleged consumer confusion. The defendant removed the action to federal court, contending that the claim necessarily arose under federal trademark law. The district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand, ruling that the well-pleaded complaint rule controls because the complaint asserted only a state-law claim, and neither the artful-pleading exception nor complete preemption under the Lanham Act created federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory