This case involves franchisees of Wireless Toyz suing the franchisor and related defendants for intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment Law, breach of contract, conversion, unfair business practices under California law, and civil RICO claims, alleging that defendants failed to disclose material financial information such as chargebacks and hits when inducing plaintiffs to enter franchise agreements. The court addressed defendants' motions to dismiss various counts under Rule 12(b)(6) and a preemption motion. It granted dismissal of the claims for breach of implied contract of good faith and fair dealing and conversion, but denied dismissal of the fraud, misrepresentation, MFIL, unfair practices, and RICO counts, as well as claims related to specific stores. The court also denied the preemption motion, rejected a request for sua sponte summary judgment, and ordered plaintiffs to amend their RICO claim to clarify the statutory basis, finding the pleadings otherwise sufficient under applicable standards.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilitycriminal law
In Gibson v. United Airlines, Inc., plaintiff Tony Gibson, a longtime United Airlines employee and union representative, alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for providing deposition testimony supporting a co-worker's race discrimination claim under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the discharge was based solely on a customer complaint about Gibson's handling of a call, which violated company rules. The court denied the motion, finding that Gibson had established a prima facie case of retaliation through evidence of protected activity, adverse action, and a causal link, including the timing of events and a supervisor's reaction to the testimony. It further held that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether the employer's proffered reason was pretextual, based on comparisons to discipline given to other employees for similar or worse conduct and the lack of specificity in company policies regarding the alleged violation.
The case involved a former doctoral student at Wayne State University who sued the university, its board, and a dean under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the revocation of her education degree for plagiarism violated her Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It found that the university's procedures, including a fact-finding investigation, notice of charges, and an informal conference option under the Student Code of Conduct, provided constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the plaintiff could have called witnesses such as her advisor or committee members but chose not to, and that additional safeguards like a formal hearing or board review were not required to meet minimal due process standards. Dean Wood was also entitled to qualified immunity.
This case involves ten individuals employed by UPS who alleged that UPS, its workers' compensation insurer Liberty Mutual, and Dr. Paul Drouillard participated in a scheme to fraudulently deny or terminate their benefits through false independent medical examinations and reports, in violation of RICO and various state laws. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that all of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were personal in nature or derivatives of personal injuries, rather than injuries to business or property as required for a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The court further held that even if a property interest existed, the plaintiffs lacked standing because Michigan law does not recognize a property right in workers' compensation benefits absent a final administrative determination of eligibility.
This case is a trademark infringement lawsuit under the Lanham Act in which plaintiffs 1177216 Ontario Ltd. and CLT Logistics allege that defendants Almar, River West, and SBB unauthorizedly used the SALON SELECTIVES marks on hair care products. Defendants contend they hold an oral license from predecessors or a partial ownership interest in the marks, stemming from a 2006 Unilever license later assigned to SBB and related transactions involving Hilco. The court denied defendants' motion to stay the case in favor of parallel state proceedings, denied plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion without prejudice due to evidentiary gaps on irreparable harm and likelihood of success, denied the motion to dismiss, and denied summary judgment without prejudice because material factual disputes exist over the validity and scope of any license (including timing of ownership and sublicensing authority) and because discovery is incomplete.
This case involves former students of ComputerTraining schools suing the schools and Sallie Mae, their student loan provider, for refunds and damages after the schools closed abruptly in 2009. The plaintiffs asserted claims against Sallie Mae through the FTC Holder Rule in their loan promissory notes, which incorporated the schools' alleged liabilities. Sallie Mae moved to dismiss or compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the notes. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Utah law governed the agreement to arbitrate, the clause was valid and enforceable, the FTC Holder Rule did not render the claims nonarbitrable, and any disputes over validity were delegated to the arbitrator.
