Janet T. Neff

In United States v. Gillam, the defendant pleaded guilty after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect to possessing with intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine, an offense that carried a five-year mandatory minimum under the prior version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). The district court held that the Act’s increased quantity thresholds (raising the five-year minimum trigger from 5 to 28 grams) applied to defendants sentenced after the Act’s August 3, 2010 effective date, even though the offense occurred before that date. After granting downward departures for substantial assistance and overstated criminal history, the court imposed an 18-month sentence. The court reasoned that the statute’s text and purpose to “restore fairness” to crack sentencing, combined with the Sentencing Commission’s new guidelines, required application of the reduced penalties to all post-enactment sentencings and rejected the government’s contrary interpretation.

criminal law

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians sued the National Labor Relations Board in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block the Board from pursuing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act. The charge alleged that the tribe's labor ordinance, which barred strikes by employees of its casino resort, violated federal labor law. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that the tribe could not obtain pre-enforcement review in district court. The core reasoning was that the NLRA establishes an exclusive administrative and appellate review scheme that precludes district court jurisdiction over such challenges at this stage.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a creditor appealing a bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy of Northern Michigan Fruit Company, Inc. The creditor sought to have its claim for unpaid brokerage fees treated as a priority claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) trust provisions, but the trustee argued it was only a general unsecured claim. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the creditor failed to strictly comply with PACA's statutory requirements for preserving trust benefits by not providing the required written notice of intent to preserve the claim. The court reasoned that neither substantial compliance nor any after-the-fact documentation satisfied the notice rules under 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c), rendering the tracing issue moot. As a result, the funds in the estate could be distributed without priority for the PACA claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs El Camino Resources and ePlus sued Huntington National Bank to recover millions in losses from alleged fraud by the bank's customer Cyberco Holdings, asserting claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting conversion, statutory conversion under Michigan law, and unjust enrichment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, granting the bank's motion for summary judgment on the first three counts while denying it on the unjust enrichment claim. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the bank's actual knowledge of the fraud or its substantial assistance, and that the magistrate properly applied the legal standards for aiding and abetting and conversion without error. Objections regarding the review of evidence and legal conclusions were rejected as lacking substance.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved debtor Julie Glazebrook's appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of her motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case filed in 2000. In the divorce proceedings that overlapped with the bankruptcy, a July 2000 consent judgment required Glazebrook to pay 46 percent of a consolidated student loan originally taken out by both spouses; she later sought to treat that obligation as a pre-petition, dischargeable debt. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the consent judgment created a new, post-petition debt to her former spouse that was not discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 727(b). The court relied on precedent holding that a divorce decree incurs a fresh obligation at the time it is entered and also applied laches because the debtor had waited nearly nine years and made payments for seven years before challenging the debt.

family lawprocedure

This case involved Quality Stores seeking a refund of over $1 million in FICA taxes paid on severance payments made to employees terminated during store closures and bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the payments were not wages subject to FICA taxation, and the District Court affirmed that decision on appeal. The court reasoned that the severance payments qualified as supplemental unemployment compensation benefits under 26 U.S.C. § 3402(o) because they were made due to involuntary separation from employment resulting directly from reductions in force or discontinuance of operations, and thus fell outside the definition of wages for FICA purposes.

taxesbusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials, alleging violations of his First Amendment right of access to the courts and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights related to his use of the prison law library, as well as issues with the prison food service including potential religious accommodations. The district court considered the defendants' motions for summary judgment after a magistrate judge recommended granting them. The court denied the plaintiff's objections, finding no errors in the magistrate's factual findings or legal analysis, and concluded that no constitutional violations occurred. It therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants, held that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

civil rightsfree speechreligious liberty

In this case, plaintiffs Virginia Hauf and Stephen Barrow sued Life Extension Foundation and related defendants over the use of their testimonial about Barrow's cancer recovery in LEF's promotional materials, claiming violations of the Lanham Act for false endorsement and advertising, common-law misappropriation of likeness, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining counts and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that Hauf had signed a broad 2001 release granting LEF irrevocable rights to use the names, pictures, and testimonial for advertising and other purposes without further approval, which negated any claim of unauthorized commercial exploitation or resulting consumer confusion.

business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a former Thomas Cooley Law School student who sued the school in federal court after her 2006 academic dismissal, alleging counts of disability discrimination, hostile environment, retaliation, and interference under the ADA (Titles III and V), similar claims under Michigan's PWDCRA, and breach of contract. These claims arose from her court-ordered reenrollment under a state-court TRO during an earlier lawsuit over her 2001 dismissal, in which she earned most but not all credits toward her degree. The court granted the school's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the federal claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from the prior state-court proceedings that upheld the dismissals, that the plaintiff could not establish causation for her alleged harms, and that the breach-of-contract claim lacked any basis given the state rulings.

civil rightsprocedure

Shafer Redi-Mix appealed a bankruptcy court judgment that discharged a debt owed by Robert Craft for concrete supplies, seeking to except the debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) on grounds that Craft had committed defalcation while acting as a fiduciary under the Michigan Building Contract Fund Act. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling after a bench trial, finding that Shafer Redi-Mix failed to prove Craft had received any payments from third-party construction contracts that would activate a statutory trust. The core reasoning was that the Act creates a trust only on construction funds received by a contractor, not on materials supplied, and without evidence of such funds the required fiduciary relationship and misappropriation could not be established.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and first-degree home invasion. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest, alleging his attorney had previously represented the victim in a related assault matter and could not fully elicit testimony about her motive to lie because of attorney-client privilege. After preliminary screening under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the district court dismissed the petition, concluding it failed to present a meritorious federal claim and lacked merit on its face. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists could not debate the dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a Preferred Promoter Agreement between the Grand Rapids arena authority (CAA) and its manager (SMG) with promoter Live Nation, under which revenue from competitor-promoted events at the arena was shared and Live Nation paid a portion of its revenue from events at rival venues like plaintiff's DeltaPlex; plaintiff alleged this arrangement violated federal and state antitrust laws by seeking to monopolize arena events and raise costs. The court denied motions to dismiss the federal and state antitrust claims, finding them plausible under the Twombly standard and in need of further factual development on the agreement's purpose and effects, and also allowed related claims for tortious interference and certain state open-meetings and records laws to proceed. It granted dismissal of the § 1983 claim for insufficient heft and declined to issue a declaratory judgment that the agreement was ultra vires under state law. The core reasoning applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards to assess whether the antitrust allegations crossed the threshold from speculative to plausible without a developed factual record.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an anesthesiologist who sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employer policy after time off work due to opioid and alcohol dependence; the insurer initially approved but later denied benefits upon his return to work, asserting he could perform his occupational duties. The plaintiff argued he remained eligible due to medical restrictions limiting him to part-time hours and prohibiting narcotic handling, below the plan's full-time requirements. The court held that the insurer abused its discretion in denying benefits, determining that evidence from the plaintiff's treating physicians outweighed the insurer's file-based peer reviews, while factoring in the administrator's conflict of interest and case-specific considerations under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved Little Mack Entertainment II, Inc., an operator of a business selling sexually explicit materials, challenging Marengo Township's zoning ordinances and Ordinance 2005-4 (which imposed licensing and location restrictions on sexually oriented businesses) as improperly enacted under the Michigan Township Zoning Act and unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court granted the Township's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It reasoned that the ordinances were validly enacted without procedural violations, provided adequate alternative locations for such businesses, and constituted permissible content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations that did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights, drawing on precedents like Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In Hauf v. Life Extension Foundation, mother and son plaintiffs sued the Life Extension Foundation and its founder William Faloon over the unauthorized use of their personal cancer recovery story and likeness in 2005 membership drive materials that included allegedly false statements, asserting claims under the Lanham Act for false endorsement, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, right of publicity, defamation, and related state laws. The defendants moved to dismiss various counts under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, with Faloon additionally seeking dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied both motions, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the defendants' involvement in tortious conduct and that specific personal jurisdiction over Faloon was proper under Michigan law and due process because the solicitation materials targeted Michigan residents and caused harm there. The decision emphasized that corporate officers can be personally liable for torts in which they participate.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in a post-judgment adversary proceeding where plaintiffs Q.S.I. Holdings, Inc. and Quality Stores, Inc. sought to avoid and recover cash payments made to former shareholders of debtor Quality Stores, Inc. as part of a leveraged buyout, alleging they were constructively fraudulent conveyances under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 550 and Michigan law. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the payments qualified as exempt "settlement payments" made by a "financial institution" under 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). The district court affirmed after de novo review, adopting the bankruptcy court's uncontested facts and concluding that the LBO structure— involving cash transfers through exchange agent HSBC Bank and ESOT trustee LaSalle Bank to acquire and tender shares—met the statutory definition of protected settlement payments.

business & regulatoryfederal power