Robert James Jonker

This case is a bankruptcy appeal concerning a Chapter 7 debtor who entered an agreement to assume a car lease after the trustee rejected it under section 365(d)(1), but without court approval, and later surrendered the vehicle before discharge. The Bankruptcy Court held that the assumption eliminated discharge protection, allowing the lessor to obtain a post-discharge default judgment for remaining lease obligations including early termination penalties. The District Court reversed, holding that an unapproved assumption under section 365(p) does not remove the discharge that follows from the trustee's rejection. The core reasoning is that to revive personal liability, the lessor must obtain both the debtor's assumption and Bankruptcy Court approval under the reaffirmation rules of section 524(c) or equivalent provisions, consistent with the statutory text, the discharge form, and bankruptcy policies protecting the fresh start.

procedureproperty

The case involved a credit card issuer appealing a bankruptcy court's ruling that a debtor's credit card charges were dischargeable in bankruptcy rather than excepted under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) for alleged fraud. The bankruptcy court credited the debtor's testimony that he intended to repay the debt despite medical problems preventing work and an economic downturn, and it awarded the debtor costs and attorney fees under § 523(d) after finding the creditor's position not substantially justified; the court rejected arguments that the debtor needed a formal counterclaim for fees or that the fee award was untimely. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court's credibility findings were supported and that the debtor's answer sufficiently requested fees while fee awards are collateral to the merits judgment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Joseph Casias, an at-will Walmart employee in Michigan who was fired after testing positive for marijuana following a workplace injury, despite holding a registry card under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) authorizing his medical use. Casias sued Walmart and his store manager in state court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and the MMMA, after which the defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing the manager was fraudulently joined. The court analyzed whether the MMMA altered Michigan's at-will employment doctrine to create a protected class for qualifying medical marijuana users or imposed any duty on private employers to accommodate such use. It concluded that the MMMA's text, structure, and purpose did not regulate private employment relationships, did not create a private right of action against employers, and could not override federal law or the default at-will rule, leading to dismissal of the claims. The court also addressed jurisdictional issues by determining that the manager's joinder did not defeat diversity once the claims against him were found meritless.

labor & employmentcriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

This case involves a petition by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking temporary injunctive relief against Douglas Autotech Corporation. The dispute arose after a union representing employees at the company's Bronson, Michigan facility called an economic strike without having filed the required 30-day notice with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, rendering the strike unlawful; the union promptly offered to return to work unconditionally upon discovering the error, but the company locked out the workers and later terminated the entire bargaining unit. The court granted the petition, ordering the company to reinstate the workers to a lockout position and to bargain in good faith with the union pending a final Board decision. The reasoning centered on preserving the status quo and the possibility of meaningful collective bargaining, as the company had exceeded the narrow window during which it could lawfully respond to the illegal strike by eliminating the bargaining unit entirely, and interim relief would prevent irreparable harm to the bargaining process without prejudging the merits.

labor & employment

This case involves Muslim prisoners at Lakeland Correctional Facility who filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RLUIPA, and § 1986, alleging that prison officials violated their rights by failing to provide Halal food consistent with Shari’ah, prohibiting prayer oil and certain religious clothing, and interfering with Ramadan observances and Eid celebrations; they sought a preliminary injunction requiring a partial Halal kitchen and specific Halal meals during Ramadan 2010. The district court approved the magistrate judge’s report and denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The court found the requested relief moot because Ramadan 2010 had ended by the time of decision. Even if not moot, the court concluded plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits due to procedural hurdles like exhaustion of remedies, the availability of a vegetarian menu as an alternative, and the need for deference to prison officials in managing food services, with no showing of irreparable harm.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

This case was a contract dispute between retired employees from a Michigan manufacturing plant and the successor company over whether a series of collective bargaining agreements granted the retirees vested lifetime healthcare benefits, including group insurance and full Medicare Part B reimbursement. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the agreements did create such vested benefits. The ruling rested on the plain language of the contracts, uncontradicted testimony from negotiators on both sides confirming the parties' intent for lifetime vesting, and the defendant's own due diligence review that reached the same conclusion.

labor & employment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Jeffrey Duane Cox after his state conviction on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual contact with an adult alleged to be mentally incapable of consent. The court reviewed objections to the magistrate judge's report and, after de novo consideration, denied Cox's motion to amend but conditionally granted the petition. The core reasoning centered on a Brady violation, as the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence of the purported victim's own criminal proceedings and mental competency findings, which undermined the state's claims at trial about the victim's incapacity and were material to the defense; this was compounded by improper prosecutorial arguments, and AEDPA deference did not apply due to the evidence not being before the state courts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy over whether IRS tax assessments for the debtor's 2000 and 2001 income tax years qualified for priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(iii), which would affect distribution of the estate between the IRS and the other creditor, Brae Asset Fund. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the assessments did not qualify for priority because the returns were in fact fraudulent under the exception in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), even though the IRS had assessed the taxes under a non-fraud statute of limitations and without a fraud penalty. On appeal, the District Court affirmed, holding that the statutory priority exception turns on the factual nature of the tax debt rather than the IRS's unilateral choice of assessment method, and that the IRS had failed to raise any genuine factual dispute about fraud on summary judgment. The court declined to address whether the ruling would bind the debtor on nondischargeability issues, as no such proceeding had been initiated.

taxesprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a Michigan state prisoner convicted in 2004 of eleven offenses, including armed robbery, carjacking, home invasion, assault, and felony-firearm counts, stemming from a March 2003 crime spree across northern Michigan counties. The petitioner raised six claims, primarily alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in presenting an insanity defense, prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination, denial of a chosen psychiatric expert, limits on expert testimony regarding state of mind, and evidence tampering, all asserted as violations of Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition in full after finding the claims either procedurally defaulted or without merit under AEDPA review standards. The core reasoning was that trial counsel's strategic choices on the insanity defense did not constitute deficient performance or prejudice, the prosecutor's statements were not improper, and no constitutional violations occurred in the handling of experts or evidence.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

In this case, defendant Martell Peoples, arrested for driving on a suspended license, moved to suppress a handgun found during a warrantless search of his vehicle while he was handcuffed in a patrol car. The search occurred before the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which limited searches incident to arrest, and the government conceded the search violated the Fourth Amendment under Gant but argued it was valid due to officers' good-faith reliance on pre-Gant Sixth Circuit precedent. The court granted the motion to suppress, holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not extend to reliance on case law later invalidated by Gant, even though Gant applies retroactively to pending cases, and distinguishing prior precedents like United States v. Leon and United States v. Peltier.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved Allstate Insurance seeking reimbursement of approximately $151,000 in Michigan no-fault auto benefits it paid following a 2002 motorcycle accident that injured Air Force member Brian Menefee. Allstate initially denied coverage, leading Tricare to pay Spectrum Health for Menefee's medical bills at a discounted rate; after a state court ruled Allstate liable and entered partial judgment, Allstate paid the full billed amount via garnishment and settlement but later claimed the funds should have reimbursed Tricare instead. After discovery, the district court denied Allstate's summary judgment motion on all counts, granted Tricare's and the Tallman Defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and denied the Tallman Defendants' request for sanctions. The court reasoned that Allstate's reimbursement theories failed due to the finality of the state court judgment, the parties' settlements and disbursements, and the lack of any obligation or mechanism to redirect funds post-payment under the applicable insurance and contract rules. The decision resolved all claims and ended the case.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Broderick v. 119TCBAY, LLC, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing the first digit of his credit card number on a hotel checkout receipt and sought statutory damages on behalf of himself and a nationwide class. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that the first digit of any credit card number is simply the numeric equivalent of the card brand name, which all parties agreed could lawfully appear in word form on the receipt, and that Congress enacted FACTA to restrict only personal identifying information that could facilitate identity theft rather than innocuous brand information.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a contract dispute between Muskegon Central Dispatch 911 and Tiburon, Inc. over a software implementation agreement for an emergency dispatch system. MCD claimed Tiburon breached the agreement, while Tiburon asserted MCD terminated the contract without cause and sought damages under a termination-for-convenience clause. The arbitrator ruled for Tiburon solely on the ground that MCD had not followed the contract's multi-step dispute resolution procedure and did not reach the merits of the underlying claims. The court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the matter to the same arbitrator to decide the case on the merits after any additional proceedings the arbitrator deemed necessary.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Kathryn Bletz, individually and on behalf of her deceased husband's estate, against two police officers for fatally shooting Fred Bletz during a nighttime warrantless entry into the family home to arrest their son on a misdemeanor warrant and for restraining her afterward. The officers moved for summary judgment on all claims asserting qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan law, while the plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on her individual claims. The court granted the defendants' motion in part by dismissing undeveloped Fifth, Eighth, and certain Second Amendment claims but denied it in part on the remaining Fourth Amendment, state-law, and bystander claims, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion, based on disputed facts regarding consent to entry, the officers' announcements, and the reasonableness of the use of force.

civil rightscriminal lawgunstorts & liability

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to remove a Michigan state court action to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The removing defendant, Stewart Title, conceded that multiple defendants were Michigan citizens, triggering the forum-defendant rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) that bars removal in such circumstances. The court had issued a show-cause order within the 30-day period for motions to remand, but the plaintiff never filed such a motion; Stewart Title argued that this barred any remand. The court held that the forum-defendant rule is a statutory limit on removal jurisdiction rather than a waivable procedural defect, allowing the court to enforce it sua sponte even without a timely motion. It therefore remanded the action to the 13th Judicial Circuit Court for the State of Michigan.

procedurefederal power

This case involves a habeas corpus petition by a Michigan prisoner challenging the Parole Board's revocation of his parole for the third time after his 1992 armed robbery conviction. The petitioner alleged due process violations from false testimony at the hearing and doctored records, plus an ex post facto violation from the retroactive application of a Zero Gun Tolerance Policy that led to a 60-month continuance. After de novo review of the magistrate judge's report, the court dismissed the due process claim because the hearing examiner's credibility findings are presumed correct under federal habeas standards and no evidence supported the tampering allegations. On the ex post facto claim, the court found that even if technically retroactive, the policy did not create a significant risk of greater punishment since the parole board retained full discretion. The petition was summarily dismissed as meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former Comstock Township Board trustee who sued the township and fellow board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated during an April 2007 board meeting when he was barred from speaking during the citizen comment period and the meeting was adjourned before he finished addressing other business. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the citizen comment period was a limited forum reserved for private citizens, not board members who had other opportunities to speak, and that the board's procedural decisions, including the adjournment vote, did not constitute unconstitutional restrictions on speech. The court noted that the plaintiff had already spoken extensively during the meeting and provided no evidence that the actions were based on the content of his speech rather than neutral rules and procedures.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

This consolidated case involves rail carriers CSX Transportation, Marquette Rail, and New York & Atlantic Railway seeking recovery of freight charges, demurrage, and disposal costs from recycling companies Meserole Street Recycling and Westbury Paper Stock for transporting low-grade scrap paper waste from New York facilities to Michigan in 2005-2006. The carriers moved for summary judgment on liability under bills of lading and tariffs, while the recyclers contested their status as shippers or consignors and argued that intermediaries like Vortex or C&V were responsible. The court analyzed the parties' agreements, the template bills of lading (which left Section 7 blank), CSX price lists and tariffs, and federal rail regulations to determine who bore responsibility for the shipments. It concluded that Meserole and Westbury qualified as the shippers/consignors bound by the transportation contracts and thus liable for the charges, rejecting arguments that they were not the real parties in interest or that Staggers Act exemptions altered collection rights.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned an appeal by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee and his law firm from a bankruptcy court order disallowing certain attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with a dispute over unpaid condominium association dues on nine undeveloped lots that became part of the debtor's estate. The underlying conflict involved the trustee's efforts to sell the lots and address claims by the association, including whether court approval was required for any settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019, and the debtor's objections to any payments. The district court held that professional fees could be compensable if the services provided a benefit to the estate when rendered, measured without hindsight, and that the ultimate outcome of a proposed settlement did not automatically preclude recovery; the matter was analyzed under standards for necessary and beneficial work by estate professionals rather than routine trustee duties.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In Torrez v. McKee, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions for assault with intent to murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony firearm possession arising from a bar fight in which he shot two bouncers. The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the petition in full after rejecting the petitioner's nine grounds for relief. Several claims were found procedurally defaulted under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D) due to failure to properly raise federal issues on direct appeal or collateral review, while the remaining claims, including evidentiary exclusions, the shackling of a defense witness, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, were rejected on the merits for lack of constitutional error or prejudice under applicable standards such as Strickland.

criminal lawprocedure