David M. Lawson

In Bantom v. DTE Energy Co., the plaintiff sued his former employer in Michigan state court for retaliatory discharge against public policy, negligent discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after being fired for alleged theft and unauthorized reconnection of electrical service. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act because they arose under a collective bargaining agreement and involved union activity. The court ordered the defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded and, after review, concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. The court reasoned that the complaint made no reference to the CBA, union activity, or any federal claim, and the plaintiff as master of his complaint could avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading only state-law causes of action. Accordingly, the case was remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns competing claims to a 'Held Payment' fund of about $280,000 that the plaintiffs (administrators of a laborers' multiemployer benefit plan) and defendants (construction companies) created under a temporary agreement to secure a 2008 ERISA judgment for unpaid fringe benefits and fees while the defendants appealed. An intervenor (PUDF) held its own separate judgment against the defendants and sought the fund via writs of garnishment. The court held that the plaintiffs hold the superior interest in the fund as security for their affirmed judgment, PUDF holds the next priority as a lien creditor, and defense counsel is entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee from any refunded portion generated by his successful appeal work under Michigan equitable principles on charging liens. The ruling applies the fund first to the plaintiffs, then allows counsel's fee claim from any remainder before satisfying PUDF and any residual lien.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved First American Title Insurance Company seeking to have debts owed by debtor Bryan Pazdzierz declared nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations in loan documents for carwash purchases as part of a larger fraud scheme. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Pazdzierz, finding that the assigned fraud claims were not assignable under Michigan law, First American could not show its own reliance, and subrogation did not apply. The district court reversed, holding that enforcing the promissory notes did not violate the non-assignability rule for fraud claims, First American could rely on the original lender's reliance for the nondischargeability elements, and subrogation was not available but not needed.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In Murphy v. Lockhart, a Michigan prisoner sued Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, claiming retaliation for comments to a reporter about a prior escape attempt, interference with religious mail, retaliation for an earlier lawsuit, and due process violations from extended administrative segregation without review. The district court performed de novo review of objections to two magistrate judges' reports and recommendations on the defendants' summary judgment motions. It adopted in part and rejected in part the first magistrate's report, adopted the second, overruled the defendants' objections and the plaintiff's objections in part, granted the first motion in part and denied it in part, and denied defendant Werner's second motion. The core reasoning addressed waiver of arguments not raised before the magistrate, the defendants' failure to prove exhaustion of remedies, and correction of the docket for previously dismissed defendants.

civil rightsprocedurefree speechreligious liberty

In this copyright sampling dispute, after the federal court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on the merits and sanctioned them for evidence manipulation, the plaintiffs filed a new state court lawsuit against the defendants' attorneys alleging various state-law claims including abuse of process, negligence, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved in federal court to enjoin that state action, arguing it sought to relitigate issues already decided against the plaintiffs. The court denied the injunction, holding that the Anti-Injunction Act limits federal authority to enjoin state proceedings to narrow circumstances and that the specific state-law claims had not been adjudicated in the federal case, even if related factual findings might support preclusion defenses. The court concluded that traditional issue and claim preclusion doctrines should be applied by the state court judge.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over life insurance proceeds from an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan, where the decedent's estate sought to recover funds paid by the insurer to the ex-wife (the named beneficiary) based on a divorce judgment that included a waiver of such benefits under Michigan law. The defendant removed the case from state court to federal court, asserting complete preemption by ERISA. The court granted the motion to remand, determining that the complaint asserted a state-law equitable claim to enforce the divorce judgment rather than a claim for benefits under the plan itself, so it was not completely preempted and the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied attorney fees, finding the removal attempt was objectively reasonable though ultimately unsuccessful.

federal powerprocedurefamily law

The case involves a prisoner's civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that a corrections officer retaliated against him for filing prior lawsuits by provoking an incident and charging him with misconduct, resulting in detention and lost privileges. After multiple appeals, including to the Supreme Court which remanded on the Heck v. Humphrey issue, the district court reviewed supplemental evidence including an inmate affidavit and found sufficient proof of causation to create a triable fact issue on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the grounds that the prisoner's right to access the courts and the prohibition on retaliation were clearly established. The matter was set for trial.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawprocedure

In Sanders v. Stanley, plaintiffs Elizabeth Sanders and Jude Beekowitz sued two physicians at Botsford Hospital for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and false imprisonment. The claims arose after the doctors reported to police their medical suspicions that Sanders had given birth to a viable fetus that the couple may have disposed of illegally, following Sanders's miscarriage and emergency treatment. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against them. It held that the doctors' reports to police were protected by qualified immunity under the Child Protection Act and common law, as the plaintiffs offered no evidence of malice, and that the doctors played no role in any alleged false imprisonment of Sanders at the hospital.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

In this case, OceanFirst Bank sought to serve a subpoena for deposition and documents on non-party Kathleen Williams in connection with New Jersey federal litigation over insurance coverage for losses on a defaulted mortgage issued to Williams. The bank moved for alternate service after its process server made four unsuccessful visits to an apartment listed on Williams's expired Michigan driver's license. The court denied the motion, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires personal service of subpoenas unless the requesting party first shows diligent but unsuccessful attempts at personal service and proposes an alternate method reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt. The plaintiff's evidence failed to establish either diligence or that the Ypsilanti apartment was Williams's current residence.

procedure

The case involved a law firm appealing the bankruptcy court's denial of its fee application in a Chapter 13 proceeding for debtor Kim Vinida Humphries. The bankruptcy court had voided the fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 526(c)(1) because it was not executed within five business days after the firm first provided bankruptcy assistance services, as required by § 528(a)(1). The district court held that the five-day timing rule governs the conduct of debt relief agencies rather than the contents or enforceability of the fee contract itself, and therefore vacated the denial order and remanded for further proceedings on the fee petition under applicable standards such as 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B).

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Michigan prisoner David McCloy sued Correction Medical Services and state corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations arising from inadequate medical care for his insulin-dependent diabetes, improper discipline, and interference with his legal materials while incarcerated at multiple facilities. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that McCloy had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies through the prison grievance system. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motions on exhaustion grounds and dismissing most claims with prejudice; the district court adopted the recommendation in part after de novo review, finding no genuine dispute that the grievances were properly rejected for noncompliance with MDOC policy. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants but ordered dismissal of the complaint without prejudice, reasoning that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that does not support a merits-based or preclusive dismissal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Todd Dennis, a school custodian who suffered a right shoulder injury in 2006 requiring multiple surgeries and who applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act after the Social Security Administration denied his claim. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's report recommending affirmance of the Commissioner's denial, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part, denied the defendant's motion, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. The court reasoned that the ALJ failed to discuss or properly weigh key evidence from treating physicians regarding the plaintiff's pain and work restrictions, including their opinions that conflicted with other record evidence, which violated the requirement to provide specific reasons for discounting treating source opinions and prevented meaningful judicial review.

labor & employment

The case involves Robert Allen King seeking review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, based on conditions including rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, depression, and related impairments. The ALJ applied the five-step sequential analysis, found the plaintiff capable of light work with certain limitations, and determined he was not disabled, a decision the magistrate judge recommended affirming. The district court conducted de novo review and agreed with most of the magistrate's analysis but held that the ALJ failed to adequately address or explain the weight given to the VA's separate disability determination. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's summary judgment motion in part, denied the Commissioner's motion, reversed the administrative findings, and remanded for further consideration and record development on that issue.

healthcareprocedure

This case is a civil forfeiture action in which the government sought to seize approximately $650,000 from multiple bank accounts linked to Safescript Pharmacy #19, LLC, alleging the funds were proceeds from the illegal distribution of controlled substances such as OxyContin by pharmacy employees. Claimants Stacey Hogan Gianoplos, Ronald G. Carson, and H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. asserted that portions of the money were unconnected to the pharmacy's operations and that they qualified as innocent owners. The court denied the claimants' motions for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, finding genuine issues of material fact in the record that required resolution at trial. It also granted in part and denied in part the government's motion for a protective order, allowing limited discovery but prohibiting access to certain sealed criminal case documents and grand jury testimony, and set a discovery deadline of May 31, 2011, with a status conference to follow.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved the City of Detroit suing Comcast over the renewal of a cable television franchise agreement. The City alleged that Michigan's Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act conflicted with and was preempted by the federal Cable Communications Policy Act, and that Comcast had violated federal requirements by not renewing the franchise properly. Comcast moved to dismiss, arguing no private right of action and lack of substantial federal question for jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the claims raised a substantial federal question under the Supremacy Clause and the franchise agreement enforceable in federal court, thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Michigan public bodies suing a dissolved Michigan construction company and its surety insurer in state court over alleged defects in the building of a justice center, asserting breach of contract, negligence, warranty, and surety claims under state law. The insurer removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing that the joinder of the Michigan defendant was fraudulent because the company had dissolved and wound up its affairs. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the removing party failed to carry its burden of proving that the dissolved corporation had fully completed winding up its affairs under Michigan law, so complete diversity was absent and federal jurisdiction did not exist.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves Antonio Garcia-Dorantes's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions for second-degree murder and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. The district court denied six of the seven claims in the petition, finding some procedurally barred by independent state rules and others without merit, including issues with pretrial statements, the Confrontation Clause, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing based on judge-found facts. The remaining claim—that minorities were systematically excluded from the jury venire in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community—could not be resolved on the existing record. The court therefore referred that claim to a magistrate judge for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing before preparing a report and recommendation.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved homeowners who obtained a mortgage loan from IndyMac Bank in 2004 with features including negative amortization and an adjustable rate, later alleging various disclosure and underwriting violations after selling their property in a short sale. After IndyMac failed and its assets were transferred through the FDIC to OneWest Bank as servicer and assignee, the plaintiffs sued OneWest and others in state court for statutory and common-law claims seeking damages and rescission. OneWest removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against OneWest without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs' claims related to the failed bank's acts or omissions and thus were subject to the FIRREA administrative exhaustion requirement under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D), which the plaintiffs had not pursued.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Parks v. Warren, petitioner Curtis Parks sought a writ of habeas corpus after his 2001 Kent County, Michigan convictions on three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, raising claims including that African Americans were systematically excluded from the jury venire due to a county computer error that omitted certain zip codes. The court had previously addressed other issues and referred the fair-cross-section claim for an evidentiary hearing, where statistical evidence suggested underrepresentation but state court records showed the actual jury pool in Parks's trial was representative of the community. The court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation, overruled the respondent's objections, and denied the petition, holding that the Sixth Amendment requirement was satisfied because the venire was fairly representative despite the flawed system. The decision rested on the conclusion that the statistical inference of underrepresentation was rebutted by specific evidence from the trial record showing no constitutional violation occurred in this case.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a prison guard, Ralph Smith, Jr., who was terminated from his position with the Michigan Department of Corrections following an altercation with a coworker, later reinstated without back pay or full benefits, and who sued the department and various employees alleging violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment and Title VII retaliation, gender discrimination under state law, and several state tort claims including tortious interference and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the due process claim failed and that other claims were barred by sovereign and governmental immunity. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the claims against the MDOC and certain employees due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing the Fifth Amendment claim, the Title VII retaliation claim, the state gender discrimination claim, and the negligence claim as barred by governmental immunity, while allowing the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim to proceed because the complaint sufficiently alleged a deprivation of rights.

civil rightslabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability