Thomas Lamson Ludington

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.

procedurecivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

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.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

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.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatory

In Glenn v. Holder, four Michigan pastors and religious activists sued the U.S. Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal provisions in the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2), which imposes penalties for willfully causing bodily injury motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. The plaintiffs argued that the Act was vague, overbroad, chilled their speech and association, violated their free exercise and equal protection rights by disfavoring their religious views on homosexuality, and exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority. The court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe for review. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs had not alleged any intent to willfully cause or attempt bodily injury in violation of the Act, making any risk of prosecution entirely speculative, and that the statute explicitly protects First Amendment expression and religious exercise unconnected to violent acts.

criminal lawfree speechreligious libertycivil rights

The case involves Michigan Electric Transmission Company (METC) suing Midland Cogeneration Venture (MCV) in state court under state law claims including unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract to recover over one million dollars in operation, maintenance, and property tax expenses for electric transmission equipment used by MCV's power plant. MCV removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act and FERC regulations because METC's rates are subject to federal oversight, and moved to dismiss based on the filed rate doctrine. METC moved to remand, arguing that any federal issues were merely defenses that did not create federal jurisdiction. The court denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion to remand, denied the stay motion as moot, and ordered further briefing on whether it must defer to FERC's primary jurisdiction over the questions presented.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Turppa v. County of Montmorency, plaintiff Bonnie Turppa sued the county alleging age discrimination in her termination from her position as a probate register, in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the county was not her employer because she worked for the county probate court. The court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and denied it, concluding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that the county and the probate court could be considered co-employers. The court further held that the probate court was not a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because the complaint sought only damages and not reinstatement, and it allowed the case to proceed solely against the county while extending the scheduling order to account for procedural delays.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case arose when Lewis and Jean Lowden were detained, arrested, and jailed for twenty-four hours while participating in a funeral procession because their van displayed political signs critical of President George W. Bush, based on enforcement of Michigan's funeral protest statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.167d. Plaintiffs sued Clare County and the involved deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the statute was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and overbroad under the First Amendment, both on its face and as applied, and seeking declaratory relief, damages, and attorney fees. The court had previously denied qualified immunity on the as-applied claims but granted it on the facial challenges, and now addressed whether to abstain from deciding the facial constitutionality. The court concluded that Pullman abstention was unwarranted due to the statute's potential chilling effect on protected speech and that Burford abstention did not apply because the case involved a single statute rather than a complex state regulatory scheme, and therefore exercised discretion to entertain the request for declaratory relief.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

This case involves claims by the estate of William Scozzari against the City of Clare, its police chief, an officer, and others arising from Scozzari's shooting death by police in 2007. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and deliberate indifference under § 1983, municipal liability, assault and battery, gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and ADA discrimination. On supplemental briefing, the court granted summary judgment to the officers on Fourth Amendment claims not alleged in the complaint and to the city on the ADA claim, but denied summary judgment on the assault and battery claims because factual disputes existed over the officers' conduct and any delay in medical care. The court also denied the officers' motion for relief from a prior order that had denied them qualified immunity on the excessive force and deliberate indifference claims. The reasoning centered on whether claims were properly pleaded and whether material factual disputes precluded judgment as a matter of law.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Turppa v. County of Montmorency, plaintiff Bonnie Turppa alleged her termination from the position of Probate Register was due to age discrimination under the ADEA and Michigan's ELCRA, but the case turned on identifying her employer amid the structure of Michigan's judicial system and county funding of courts. Defendant Montmorency County moved to dismiss, arguing it was not her employer, prompting plaintiff to seek sanctions for bad faith filing. The court denied the sanctions motion, finding the dismissal request was supported by existing law and not improper, while declining to resolve the motion to dismiss due to insufficient facts on the employer relationship. It ordered supplemental briefing on the Michigan Constitution's separation of powers, court administrative authority, and specific personnel policies to determine whether the county, probate court, or state was the employer. Prior similar cases were noted as non-binding.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves claims by the estate of William Scozzari against the City of Clare, its manager, police chief, and an officer following Scozzari's shooting death by police in a motel parking lot in 2007. The plaintiff alleged excessive force and deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipal liability, assault and battery, gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and ADA discrimination. On the officers' summary judgment motion, the court granted it as to gross negligence and civil conspiracy claims, denied it as to deliberate indifference, and held it in abeyance as to Fourth Amendment and assault and battery claims pending supplemental briefing. On the city and manager's motion, the court denied summary judgment on municipal liability, granted it as to civil conspiracy and all claims against the manager, and held the ADA claims in abeyance. The rulings applied Rule 56 standards, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and assessing whether genuine issues of material fact existed on each claim.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involves the City of St. Louis suing Velsicol Chemical Corporation and related entities in state court over contamination and threatened contamination of the city's drinking water wells by p-CBSA and other hazardous chemicals from a former DDT manufacturing plant and associated sites. Defendants removed the case to federal court, citing bankruptcy removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a), federal officer removal under § 1442(a), and diversity jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand. The court denied the motion to remand, concluding it had jurisdiction under the bankruptcy and federal officer removal statutes because of the defendants' ties to prior bankruptcy proceedings involving Fruit of the Loom and NWI that addressed environmental liabilities at the sites. The court also granted the United States' motion to intervene to protect its interests in the remediation and related trusts.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a challenge by the Lowden family to Michigan's funeral protest statute after they were arrested during a funeral procession for displaying political signs critical of government policies on their vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory relief, damages, and challenging the statute as overbroad and vague. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing claims against individual deputies on qualified immunity grounds and some facial challenges but allowing the municipal liability claim to proceed, while denying without prejudice other motions and granting leave for further briefing on declaratory relief regarding the statute's constitutionality. The reasoning centered on whether the plaintiffs plausibly alleged municipal policies and the applicability of qualified immunity to the officers enforcing the state law.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned whether state-court judgments awarding $10,000 each to former employees Morrison and Gomez against their employer Carmona for sexual harassment claims under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act were non-dischargeable in Carmona's Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) as debts for willful and malicious injury. Both sides moved for summary judgment in the adversary proceeding, arguing that collateral estoppel or res judicata from the accepted case evaluation awards barred relitigation of the dischargeability issue. The bankruptcy court denied the cross-motions, concluding that the judgments did not actually litigate or necessarily determine the facts required for a § 523(a)(6) finding. The district court affirmed, reasoning that Michigan law on preclusion does not apply because the case evaluation process produced no specific factual determinations and the elements of the federal dischargeability claim differ from those of the state civil rights claims.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns whether approximately 138,330 acres of land in Isabella County, Michigan, constitutes "Indian country" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1151, based on interpretations of the 1855 and 1864 treaties between the United States and the Chippewa Indians. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the United States argue that it does, while state and local officials contend otherwise, with implications for sovereignty, criminal jurisdiction, and taxation. The court addressed multiple motions to exclude expert witness testimony from historians and other specialists retained by both sides. It denied all motions, finding that the experts are qualified and their opinions on the historical understanding of the treaties are relevant and reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards.

federal powercriminal lawpropertytaxes

The case involved a plaintiff suing the United States for negligence after tripping and falling on an uneven sidewalk outside a post office building. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that under Michigan premises liability law, the uneven pavement created an open and obvious danger that an ordinary person could discover upon casual inspection, relieving the defendant of any duty to warn or liability. The court overruled the plaintiff's objections, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the magistrate judge correctly applied the summary judgment standard without improper credibility determinations.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Brooke Heike, a former Central Michigan University women's basketball player, who sued the university's Board of Trustees, head coach Sue Guevara, athletics director Dave Heeke, and an assistant director in financial aid after her removal from the team and loss of her athletic scholarship. Heike asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, along with various state-law claims including breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. In this order, the court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against the Board of Trustees and the official-capacity claims against the individual defendants except to the extent the federal claims seek prospective injunctive relief. The court directed supplemental briefing on the remaining issues. The core reasoning rested on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, which bars suits against state entities like the university and against state officials in their official capacities for retrospective relief.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Mary-Jo Hyldahl's claim that her employer, AT&T, interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating her employment after she requested leave for depression and PTSD; the company had placed her under surveillance and concluded she was able to work. A jury found for the plaintiff on the interference claim and awarded damages for past and future lost compensation. The court denied the defendant's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, holding that evidence from the plaintiff's medical providers created a factual dispute on whether she had a serious health condition and that the defendant had waived objections to the jury instructions on front pay.

labor & employment