Robert Holmes Bell

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland (F&D) over whether F&D's directors and officers and professional services liability policy covers Michigan Millers for claims brought against it in an Indiana lawsuit. The underlying dispute arose after an explosion at a farm led to wrongful death suits, with Michigan Millers providing defense to some insured entities but initially disputing coverage for Cherrytree Farms LLC, prompting the Farms to sue Michigan Millers for breach of contract, bad faith, and related claims; additional negligent defense claims were later added. Michigan Millers had not notified its prior insurer, Federal, of the 2004 lawsuit due to an underwriting exclusion but notified F&D after the new claims in 2007. The court granted Michigan Millers' motion for summary judgment and denied F&D's, finding that the claims fell within the policy's coverage for professional services liability and were not excluded by the policy's terms, including the prior litigation date or known circumstances provisions.

business & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by ABATE of Michigan and individual motorcyclists to enforcement of Michigan's motorcycle helmet law, which requires riders to wear USDOT-approved helmets and delegates rulemaking to the Michigan State Police. Plaintiffs argued that the State Police's online guidance on identifying novelty helmets was an improperly promulgated rule under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, rendering enforcement invalid, and that the law as applied violated their federal and state rights. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion, entering judgment for the State Police. It reasoned that the webpage was not a binding rule requiring APA procedures because it merely provided enforcement officers with a practical tool to apply the existing USDOT standard already adopted by reference in the regulations, without altering rights or obligations. The court also found no violation of plaintiffs' rights in the manner of enforcement.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Jimmy Ray Short filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, claiming his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal. The court held an evidentiary hearing on whether Short expressly instructed counsel to appeal, whether counsel consulted him about appealing, and whether any failure to consult was unreasonable. Applying Strickland v. Washington and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, the court found Short failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he expressly requested an appeal and that counsel's lack of consultation was not objectively unreasonable because a rational defendant in Short's position would not have appealed, given the favorable sentencing outcome, lack of meritorious issues, and other factors. The court therefore denied the § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves residents near a Coca-Cola fruit processing facility in Michigan who allege that the company's spraying of wastewater onto fields from 1979 to 2002 caused heavy metals to leach into groundwater, contaminating their properties and causing health issues and property damage. Plaintiffs brought claims including negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and violations of Michigan environmental statutes like NREPA and MEPA. On defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court granted the motion in part by dismissing four counts (negligence per se, trespass, Part 201 of NREPA, and MEPA) and certain plaintiffs for lack of sufficient individual harm or subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying the motion as to the remaining plaintiffs and counts for negligence, nuisance, and strict liability. The court reasoned that the complaint met basic federal pleading standards for the surviving claims but that other claims were barred by statutory limits on judicial review of agency remediation orders or failed to state viable causes of action.

environmentpropertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves Janet Marcusse's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her 2005 convictions and 25-year sentence for mail fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering offenses. After a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the court determined that summary dismissal of the entire motion was not appropriate and directed the government to respond to selected arguments among her 30 grounds, while dismissing others as meritless. The court reasoned that most claims failed because they were unsupported conclusions contradicted by the record, involved non-constitutional errors without a showing of fundamental defect, or were procedurally defaulted absent cause and prejudice or actual innocence; it reserved certain issues such as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, improper confiscation of legal materials, and cumulative error for further response. Specific meritless claims included allegations of improper tax code application and additional prosecutorial misconduct.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

In United States v. Walker, the defendant sought to suppress evidence of crack cocaine and marijuana trafficking discovered after officers attached a GPS tracking device to her vehicle without a warrant, used it to monitor her travel on public roads, and then obtained a search warrant based on that information. The court denied the motion to suppress, overruled the defendant's objections, and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the warrantless placement and monitoring of the GPS device did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because the defendant had knowingly exposed her vehicle's location to the public by driving on public roads, consistent with Katz v. United States. The court also rejected a newly raised claim that the GPS monitoring created an unconstitutional chilling effect on First Amendment rights, finding no supporting authority or actual allegation of chilled speech.

criminal law

This case involves a dispute between Coopersville Motors, Inc. (CMI) and its insurer Federated Mutual Insurance Company over coverage for alleged employee theft under a policy issued to CMI. Federated moved for summary judgment on two grounds: that Robert Anderson lacked authority to sue on CMI's behalf and that the policy provided no coverage due to the absence of a qualifying occurrence during the policy period along with applicable exclusions and unmet conditions. The court denied summary judgment on the authority issue, reasoning that CMI as a corporation retained capacity to sue under Michigan law regardless of asset sales or later dissolution, and that Anderson had signed the complaint in his capacity as president. The opinion noted that coverage questions, including prior estoppel rulings on the statute of limitations, had not been fully resolved in earlier proceedings and required further analysis.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved homeowners Lindsey and Nicola Golliday suing their mortgage servicer Chase Home Finance, LLC and the law firm Trott & Trott, P.C. after defaulting on a mortgage, challenging foreclosure by advertisement and alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act along with state-law claims of fraud or forgery related to a mortgage assignment executed by a MERS representative. The district court approved the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted summary judgment to Trott & Trott on all claims against it. The court reasoned that plaintiffs presented no evidence to show Trott & Trott was a debt collector under the FDCPA or that it violated the statute, and for the state fraud claim, the firm submitted evidence of the signer's authority via corporate resolution while plaintiffs offered no contrary proof and lacked standing as non-parties to challenge the assignment.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Auto-Owners Insurance sued the Edward D. Jones & Co. Employee Health and Welfare Program, a self-funded ERISA plan, to recover over $195,000 in medical payments made to an employee injured in a 2003 car accident, alleging the payments were made out of priority and should have been covered by the Plan. The court granted the Plan's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the claim was time-barred because it was filed in 2009, beyond the most analogous state statute of limitations borrowed under federal common law for ERISA priority disputes. The court further reasoned that the Plan's coordination-of-benefits language demonstrated an intent to act as secondary coverage to no-fault auto insurance, rendering Auto-Owners primary regardless.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a diversity action involving an insurance coverage dispute in which Stryker and its subsidiary sought defense and indemnification from XL Insurance America for third-party product liability claims related to a batch of defective products. After the court ruled that the claims were covered and that the insurer had breached its duties, the parties filed motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), 60(a), and 60(b)(6) concerning the calculation and entitlement to statutory interest on the judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to twelve percent interest under Michigan's Uniform Trade Practices Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2006, with interest accruing from the date of notice for each individual claim rather than the first claim in the batch. The core reasoning relied on Michigan precedent interpreting the statute's "reasonably in dispute" language as applying only to third-party tort claimants, not to the insured parties directly entitled to benefits under the policy.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Bell v. Porter, plaintiff Danielle Bell, a double amputee, alleged that Lansing police officer Donald Porter used excessive force by pushing her off a bus during a response to a passenger dispute, causing her to fall; she also claimed gross negligence, assault and battery, and violations of the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act against Porter and the City. The court addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, evaluating whether genuine issues of material fact existed on the claims. It granted the motion as to all claims against the City of Lansing, finding no municipal policy or custom supporting liability and no specific intentional discrimination from any failure to train. The motion was denied as to all claims against Officer Porter because factual disputes remained on the reasonableness of the force used and related state-law issues. The decision applied Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standards and analogous state-law requirements while construing evidence in the plaintiff's favor.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this bankruptcy appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the bankruptcy court's ruling that the Chapter 7 trustee could avoid its mortgage on the debtor's property. The district court affirmed, holding that the mortgage was defective under Michigan's Land Division Act because it lacked the required reference to the property's plat and legal description, rendering it unenforceable against a hypothetical good faith purchaser and thus avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 544. The court reasoned that Michigan law requires such references for platted property to provide constructive notice, and the mortgage's recording was a nullity without compliance.

property

This case involves retired employees of Menasha Corporation and their spouses suing the company for breach of contract under the LMRA and ERISA, claiming that collective bargaining agreements promised lifetime health insurance benefits which the company later failed to provide. The court granted summary judgment to the employee plaintiffs on their claims for lifetime coverage but granted summary judgment to the defendant on the spouses' claims. The core reasoning was that specific provisions in the 1994 and 1997 CBAs unambiguously vested lifetime retiree health benefits for qualifying employees that could not be altered unilaterally by later summary plan descriptions, while the contractual language did not extend equivalent benefits to spouses.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case is a putative collective action by seven current or former temporary employees against Labor Ready, a staffing agency, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay for time spent waiting at dispatch offices before assignments and for travel time to customer sites. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment first, before any certification motions. It granted summary judgment to Labor Ready, holding that the waiting time was not compensable because employees were free to engage in personal activities and not required to perform tasks benefiting the employer, and that travel time did not qualify as a principal activity or extend the continuous workday under FLSA standards. The court also denied the motions to approve notice and certify a class as moot.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a prisoner civil rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Dustin Gordon, a member of the Asatru faith, against Michigan Department of Corrections officials. Gordon alleges that defendants violated his rights by denying him group worship services, asserting claims under the First Amendment free exercise clause, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. After addressing evidentiary issues with an expert report on Asatru beliefs and prison practices, the court reconsidered defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the equal protection claim, finding undisputed evidence of a rational basis for the restrictions due to links between Asatru practices in prisons and white supremacy or violence risks, with no similar issues for comparable groups. The court denied summary judgment on the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims because defendants did not address potential alternatives or demonstrate that their regulations were the least restrictive means of maintaining security.

criminal lawreligious libertycivil rights

This case involves a challenge by Abate of Michigan and seven members to Michigan's motorcycle helmet law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.658(4), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on facial and as-applied constitutional grounds after some plaintiffs received citations for non-compliant helmets. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing, claim preclusion, failure to state a claim, and injunctive relief issues. It denied dismissal for lack of standing, finding a significant possibility of future enforcement harm based on plaintiffs' prior stops and the organization's mission. The court granted dismissal of the facial challenge and the pretext argument in the as-applied challenge on res judicata and pleading grounds but denied dismissal of the remaining as-applied claims and the request for injunctive relief.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved ITT Industries seeking recovery of response costs under CERCLA and Michigan's NREPA Part 201 from Royal Oak Industries, The Scott Fetzer Company, and L.A. Darling Company for contamination at the former Bronson Reel facility within the North Bronson Industrial Area Superfund site. The court, after a bench trial, held the defendants liable for their contributions to the TCE and metal contamination stemming from historical wastewater discharges into industrial lagoons and sewers between the 1930s and 1940s. It apportioned liability based on evidence of each facility's releases and their impacts on the site, awarding ITT $37,053.27 from Royal Oak and $555,799.11 each from Scott Fetzer and L.A. Darling while rejecting the defendants' contribution claims against one another. The same analysis applied to the parallel state-law claims.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan, challenging federal approvals that allowed a portion of Jean Klock Park—a park that had received Land and Water Conservation Fund Act funding—to be leased for three holes of a private golf course as part of a larger commercial redevelopment project. Plaintiffs argued that the National Park Service and Army Corps of Engineers failed to properly evaluate impacts, alternatives, mitigation, and compliance with park-use restrictions under the LWCFA and related environmental statutes. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, including the City, Harbor Shores, and the United States, holding that the agencies had adequately considered the required factors and that their decisions were not arbitrary or capricious.

environmentproperty

The case concerned a challenge by Rose Bogaert, who sponsored a recall petition against a state representative, to Michigan's requirement under Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.957 that petition circulators be registered voters residing in the relevant legislative district. After the Secretary of State struck signatures gathered in violation of the rule and rejected the petition for insufficient valid signatures, Bogaert sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her First Amendment rights. The court rejected jurisdictional defenses including Rooker-Feldman, preclusion, abstention, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, then held the residency and registration requirements unconstitutional. It reasoned that the rules substantially burden core political speech by shrinking the pool of available circulators and are not narrowly tailored to the state's compelling interests in preventing fraud and ensuring petition integrity. The court therefore entered a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against enforcement of the requirements.

electionsfree speech

This case involved former employees of Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc. who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan Minimum Wage Law, alleging the company failed to pay them for time spent donning and doffing required personal protective equipment before shifts and around lunch breaks. The plaintiffs sought certification of a collective action on behalf of all non-exempt hourly workers at the Holland, Michigan plant over the prior three years who performed such tasks, along with court-approved notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. After allowing limited discovery and holding an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion for collective action certification. The court reasoned that the named and opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated, as donning and doffing practices varied significantly by job duties, departments, supervisors, and individual preferences, despite the existence of a formal company policy to compensate for such time, which would require individualized proof on liability and damages rather than class-wide resolution.

labor & employment