In this civil case, plaintiff Jeffrey Wolgast sued defendant John Richards, a police officer, alleging wrongful arrest and related claims; after rejecting a $25,000 offer of judgment under Rule 68 and losing at trial, the defendant sought nearly $87,000 in post-offer costs. Shortly after the plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, he served a Rule 11 motion seeking sanctions against the Rule 68 motion, arguing it was frivolous because the defendant’s insurer covered the fees. The court addressed whether the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 prevented adjudication of the sanctions motion. It concluded that both motions must be deferred, staying the Rule 68 motion outright and holding the Rule 11 motion in abeyance, because the sanctions request substantively challenged the merits of a stayed pleading and any relief would implicate the bankruptcy estate. The ruling rested on the principle that a debtor should not litigate the substance of an automatically stayed claim until the stay is lifted or proceedings conclude.
This case involves a commercial dispute between Dow Corning, the manufacturer of a silicone sealant called InstantGlaze, and Weather Shield, a window and door manufacturer that purchased the product for use as a glazing compound starting in 2002. Weather Shield claimed the product failed to perform as expected and sued for breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, while Dow Corning moved for summary judgment arguing that no warranties applied or had been disclaimed. The court granted Dow Corning's motion in part, dismissing the claim for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Weather Shield was a sophisticated buyer that conducted its own testing and did not rely on Dow Corning's expertise. The court denied the motion as to the claim for breach of express warranty, finding that the sales contracts were ambiguous about whether any warranty was created or disclaimed and that disputed facts required resolution by a jury. The decision turned on the lack of clear contractual language addressing warranties and the existence of factual questions about the parties' understanding of the product's representations.
In this habeas corpus case, petitioner Joseph Ambrose challenged his 2001 Kent County convictions for armed robbery, carjacking, and felony-firearm, claiming that a computer glitch in the jury selection system systematically excluded minorities and violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after an evidentiary hearing, overruled the state's objections, and conditionally granted the writ. The court found that Ambrose had established a prima facie violation through evidence of significant underrepresentation caused by the glitch, that the claim was not barred by procedural default, and that the state had not rebutted the showing by demonstrating any significant state interest. The decision applied de novo review because the state courts had not addressed the claim on the merits.
In this case, plaintiff Fawaz Ghaith alleged that his former wife, in-laws, and daughter conspired with state and county officials to have him falsely arrested, jailed on excessive bail, and prosecuted for crimes he did not commit, in violation of his constitutional rights to parent, be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and receive a fair trial; he brought § 1983 claims against both the family members and the officials. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in part and dismissed all § 1983 claims against the state and county defendants with prejudice. The core reasoning was that § 1983 provides a remedy only against persons acting under color of state law, the family members were private citizens not acting as state actors, and the plaintiff presented no evidence that the officials conspired with the family or knew the reports were false. The court directed further briefing on whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the family.
The case arose from a 2008 vehicle repossession attempt in which a creditor's agent requested police deputies to serve as civil standby while seizing a Buick from the Hensley family property, leading to confrontations involving broken windows, drawn weapons, and alleged physical contact. Plaintiffs brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful seizure of property, conspiracy, and failure to train, along with Michigan state-law claims for assault, battery, trespass to real property and chattels, and negligence. The court granted in part and denied in part both the Officer Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on certain Fourth Amendment and tort claims while determining that other claims failed as a matter of law or were barred by qualified or governmental immunity.
The case involved landowners who sued the City of Frankenmuth after the city enacted a zoning ordinance imposing a 65,000 square foot cap on buildings, which prevented Wal-Mart from purchasing their land under an option contract worth four million dollars. A jury determined that the ordinance violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights under a class-of-one theory by treating their property differently from similarly situated parcels without a rational basis. The court denied the city's motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur, thereby upholding the $3.6 million damages award. It also granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment and assessment of fees and costs while scheduling an evidentiary hearing on attorney fee amounts and denying a motion to strike an untimely brief.