Paul Lewis Maloney

In Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the plaintiff, a former Wal-Mart employee in Michigan, sued after the company terminated him for not returning from an approved leave of absence and later refused to rehire him following a 90-day waiting period. Berrington claimed the refusal to rehire violated Michigan public policy, alleging it stemmed from his pursuit of unemployment benefits, which Wal-Mart had opposed. Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the single count for failure to state a claim. The federal district court, applying Michigan substantive law under diversity jurisdiction, granted the motion to dismiss. It held that neither the Michigan Supreme Court nor Court of Appeals has recognized a public policy exception to at-will employment in the context of hiring or rehiring decisions, and federal courts will not expand state common law to create such a cause of action.

labor & employment

This case arose from a 2001 car accident in which debtor Matthew Henney, then under 21, rear-ended another vehicle after purchasing beer, killing one Rumfield brother and injuring the other; the Rumfields obtained state-court judgments against both Henney and the store that sold him alcohol. Henney filed for bankruptcy and sought to discharge the resulting debt, while the Rumfields argued it was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) because it stemmed from operation of a vehicle while intoxicated. The bankruptcy court granted the Rumfields summary judgment, finding preclusive effect from the dram-shop verdict and from Michigan’s zero-tolerance statute for minors. On appeal, the district court held that neither the dram-shop judgment (to which Henney was not a party) nor the zero-tolerance violation established intoxication as defined by Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625(1), and therefore vacated the bankruptcy rulings and remanded for a factual determination of whether Henney was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a dispute over whether two insurance policies provided coverage for an incident involving Jim A. Fish's yacht during its lay-up period. The court granted summary judgment to Fish on the Mid-Century Yacht Secure policy, finding that the policy's failure to define terms such as "safe berth afloat" meant coverage was not excluded. The court denied without prejudice the cross-motions for summary judgment on the Farmers Insurance Exchange umbrella policy because the record was incomplete and genuine issues of material fact appeared to exist. The decision applied standard rules for interpreting insurance contracts and evaluating summary judgment motions in a diversity jurisdiction case.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a dispute over a 2004 contract between a condominium developer and Traverse City Light & Power (TCLP) for the financing and installation of street lighting on a Michigan property, with provisions allowing TCLP to impose superior tax liens on individual condo units in case of default. Brown Bark I, L.P. (BBI), the subsequent owner of the property through a mortgage foreclosure, sued TCLP seeking to avoid the payment obligations and liens. The court held that the Tax Injunction Act did not deprive it of jurisdiction over the state-law contract and lien claims. It denied BBI's motion for summary judgment and granted TCLP's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, directing the parties to file a joint statement on damages and interest. The core reasoning focused on contract interpretation regarding ownership of the lighting equipment, the validity of the recorded tax lien consents, and federal procedural rules for post-judgment interest.

propertytaxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a member corporation, and its PAC challenged the Michigan Secretary of State's interpretation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254 as applied to corporate and union contributions to a PAC that makes only independent expenditures. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement of the provision, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights to political speech and association by prohibiting such contributions for non-coordinated expenditures. The court rejected the Secretary's arguments on ripeness, exhaustion, abstention, and laches, applied strict scrutiny, and granted preliminary injunctive relief in part: it enjoined enforcement against contributions for expenditures not coordinated with candidates or candidate entities, while permitting enforcement against coordinated expenditures. The decision rested on the principle from Citizens United that the government lacks a legitimate anti-corruption interest in restricting independent corporate political speech, while coordinated activity could still be regulated.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

This diversity case involved Virginia parents who adopted a Russian child through Michigan-based Bethany Christian Services and later sued the agency, alleging it failed to provide complete medical information about the child despite their stated limits on acceptable conditions. The Harshaws asserted claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent failure to disclose on their own behalf, plus a negligent failure-to-disclose claim on behalf of their minor son. Applying Virginia substantive law, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligent failure-to-disclose counts and denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the parents' three claims, allowing them to proceed to trial. It granted summary judgment to the defendants only on the son's claim, removing him as a plaintiff. The rulings rested on the sufficiency of the pleadings and the existence of genuine factual disputes regarding the agency's disclosures and the parents' reliance.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Matthew Crehan asserting a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against police officer James Davis, along with related Michigan state-law claims, after Crehan was injured during an arrest at his home following a vehicle pursuit for which he was later convicted of third-degree fleeing and eluding. The court granted summary judgment to Davis on the federal claim, holding that qualified immunity applied because existing binding precedent did not clearly establish that the officer's use of force—twisting Crehan's arm and slamming him to the ground while he was complying with orders to get down—was unconstitutional under the circumstances. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Marci Walters suing her former employer, Pride Ambulance Company, for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) after she reported issues with overpayments from Medicare and Medicaid and took medical leave. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the FMLA claim because the defendant properly requested additional information on her certification, and dismissing the WPA claim related to the Medicare report as it did not constitute protected activity. However, the court denied summary judgment on the WPA claim regarding the Medicaid report, finding that Walters established a prima facie case of retaliation and raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer's reasons for her termination were pretextual.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a dispute between Metropolitan Hospital and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the calculation of disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustments under Medicare for hospitals serving low-income patients. The hospital challenged a regulation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that excluded certain days of care for patients eligible for Medicaid but not entitled to Medicare Part A benefits from the DSH Medicaid fraction. The court granted summary judgment to the hospital, finding that the regulation was inconsistent with the Social Security Act and prior case law, and thus arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. It ordered HHS to allow inclusion of those patient days in the calculation and awarded the hospital damages, interest, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved surgical technician Melissa White's claims of pregnancy discrimination against her former employer, Northern Michigan Regional Hospital, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) and related Michigan state law claims. White alleged that after notifying the hospital of her pregnancy in October 2007, she faced increased scrutiny and was terminated in December 2007 during her probationary period. The court had previously dismissed the Title VII claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (such as obtaining a proper right-to-sue letter from the EEOC) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. On reconsideration, the court denied the motion, finding no overlooked controlling law or other basis to revisit the exhaustion requirement, and amended the judgment to dismiss the Title VII claim with prejudice.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This diversity tort case involves Virginia plaintiffs suing Michigan-based adoption agencies for negligence and related claims arising from an international adoption process conducted through the agencies' Virginia office, where the plaintiffs allege they were not properly informed about potential health risks to their adopted child from Russia. The court granted the defendants' motion to declare that Virginia substantive law governs the claims and pending motions. Under Michigan choice-of-law principles, Virginia law applies because the plaintiffs are Virginia citizens, the key events including the application, assessment, and agreement occurred in Virginia, and Virginia has the most significant relationship to the parties and events; this includes differences such as Virginia's contributory negligence doctrine versus Michigan's comparative fault rules. The court also directed further briefing on whether the defendants are alter egos under Virginia law.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Pamela Wells, who received $2,500 in damages for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by defendant Corporate Accounts Receivable. The court addressed petitions for attorneys' fees by her counsel, granting them in part and denying in part after applying the lodestar method of reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. The court set hourly rates at $300 for attorney Lyngklip and $200 for attorneys Petrik and Guznack, reduced certain claimed hours for duplicative or unnecessary tasks, and directed the defendant to pay $1,280 to Guznack while requiring a proposed award order from the other counsel incorporating adjustments. The core reasoning focused on determining prevailing market rates for comparable attorneys in the venue, ensuring fees are sufficient to encourage competent representation without providing excess compensation, and rejecting claims that counsel unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the denial of life insurance benefits under an ERISA-governed group policy after the death of the insured, who had recently left his employment. The court reviewed the plan administrator's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard due to the discretion granted in the plan. It affirmed the denial because the policy required the employee to convert the group coverage to an individual policy within 31 days of termination (with possible extensions), which was not done, and the death occurred after the applicable period expired. The court found the administrator's interpretation of the policy terms reasonable based on the administrative record.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from a no-knock police raid on plaintiff Stella Wheeler's home in 2008 during an investigation into multiple home invasions, in which detectives searched the premises and seized items pursuant to a warrant that contained errors such as the wrong address and lacked probable cause for some seized property. Wheeler brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Detective Dennis Wirth and the City of Lansing, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment through an invalid warrant, seizures without probable cause, and unreasonable destruction of property. The court denied Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on the seizure claim, finding a Fourth Amendment violation but granting Wirth qualified immunity because no clearly established Sixth Circuit precedent at the time would have put a reasonable officer on notice that reliance on the warrant was unconstitutional. It granted the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on all federal claims against the City for failure to state a claim and on the claims against Wirth either for lack of merit or qualified immunity, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a district court appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in a Chapter 7 proceeding filed by James Livingston. National Sign and Signal sought a determination that a $1.8 million state court judgment against Livingston—for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business relationships, and misappropriation of trade secrets—was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (4), and (6). The bankruptcy court held the debt dischargeable after a trial on stipulated evidence from the prior state proceeding. The district court reversed, concluding that Livingston's conduct caused willful and malicious injury to NSS's property interests under § 523(a)(6), rendering the debt nondischargeable.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of a deceased Michigan prisoner alleging that prison officials and healthcare providers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by showing deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, leading to his death in 2007, along with a state gross negligence claim. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings by four defendants, dismissing the claims against the warden and deputy director entirely, dismissing the gross negligence claim against the health care director but allowing the constitutional claims against him and the risk management coordinator, and allowing the gross negligence claim only against the coordinator. The court reasoned that the pleadings failed to sufficiently allege personal involvement or deliberate indifference by the dismissed officials but stated plausible claims against the remaining defendants, and deferred ruling on qualified immunity pending further discovery.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

The case involved residents near a fruit-processing plant in Michigan suing Birds Eye Foods for contaminating their groundwater and soil through spray irrigation of wastewater and other waste disposal practices, alleging negligence and seeking recovery of remediation costs. The court partially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing the negligence and response-cost claims to the extent they relied on violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act but declining to dismiss those based on alleged violations of CERCLA, RCRA, and Michigan's NREPA. It reasoned that the statutes provide distinct avenues for private cost-recovery actions and that the plaintiffs, not alleged to be potentially responsible parties, could pursue claims under CERCLA section 107(a) without triggering contribution provisions. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint with more detailed allegations about their incurred costs and compliance with the National Contingency Plan.

environmenttorts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Cincinnati Insurance Company against O'Leary Paint Company seeking a ruling on insurance coverage obligations under commercial general liability policies. The dispute stems from demands by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for investigation and remediation of petroleum and hazardous substance releases at O'Leary's Indianapolis facility. The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and denied the alternative motion to dismiss or stay as moot. The decision rested on the convenience of parties and witnesses, the location of relevant documents and the contaminated site in Indiana, and the fact that Indiana law would likely apply, with little connection to Michigan or Ohio beyond the parties' residences.

procedureenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a premises-liability action under Michigan law in which Mark and Naesha Leys sued Lowe's Home Centers after an alleged injury involving a hazard at the store. Lowe's moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The court granted the motion and closed the case, holding that the hazard was open and obvious and that Michigan law does not impose liability on a landowner for such conditions absent special aspects rendering the danger unreasonably hazardous. The plaintiffs' argument that warning cones placed by Lowe's created liability was rejected for lack of supporting authority.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved Albert Elder’s federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for drug offenses following a second trial. Elder claimed, among other things, that the prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky by using peremptory strikes to remove three Black jurors and one Hispanic juror on the basis of race. The district court sustained the respondent’s objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation on the Batson claim, and dismissed the entire petition. The court reasoned that the prosecution offered plausible, race-neutral explanations for the strikes—such as the jurors’ family connections to criminal activity or anti-police bias—and that the trial court could reasonably have accepted those explanations without clear error. All other claims were adopted without objection from the magistrate’s report.

criminal lawcivil rights