Victoria A. Roberts

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal from a Chapter 7 proceeding in which debtor John Mentag challenged orders granting creditor GMAC Mortgage LLC relief from the automatic stay to pursue foreclosure on his home and denying reconsideration. The debtor questioned GMAC LLC's standing, arguing it was not the proper party in interest because the note and mortgage may have been transferred or sold under a pooling and servicing agreement involving other entities like MERS, RAMP, and Chase. The district court denied GMAC LLC's motion to dismiss the appeal and Mentag's motion to compel documents. It reversed the bankruptcy court's order lifting the stay, finding the record unclear on whether GMAC LLC was the servicer or held the requisite interest under Michigan law, and remanded for further findings on the chain of title and authority while ordering foreclosure actions to cease pending resolution. The court upheld the bankruptcy court's findings on lack of equity and adequate protection.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Brandon Henry Davis-Devine, who was indicted on counterfeiting charges after police searched his bag and hotel room following an encounter at the Metro Inn in Romulus, Michigan. Officers responded to a tip about counterfeit bills linked to room 241, observed suspicious exits by two women from the room, and searched the defendant's dropped bag without a warrant or further inquiry, leading to his arrest and discovery of additional evidence. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated his rights under Terry v. Ohio. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding the investigative stop permissible but the bag search unjustified, and the district court adopted this recommendation after review, suppressing all evidence obtained from the bag, person, and room as the fruit of an unlawful search.

criminal lawprocedure

In Lewis v. Drouillard, employees of UPS sued the company, its insurer Liberty Mutual, and Dr. Paul Drouillard under the federal RICO statute, alleging a scheme to fraudulently deny workers' compensation benefits by having selected physicians prepare false independent medical examination (IME) reports that led to termination of legitimate claims. Dr. Drouillard moved to dismiss the claims against him, arguing that the doctrine of witness immunity barred liability for his IME reports and related testimony before the Michigan Workers' Compensation Agency. The court denied the motion in part, holding that Dr. Drouillard was not entitled to absolute immunity for the preparation of the IME reports themselves, even when he later testified consistently with those reports, but was immune from suit based on the testimony alone. The decision applied federal common law under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and Sixth Circuit precedent distinguishing non-testimonial acts such as evidence fabrication from protected testimonial conduct, while noting that RICO claims differ from state tort actions and would not broadly deter physicians from performing IMEs.

criminal lawprocedurelabor & employment

This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by former Michigan prisoner Lorenzo Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs following a prison transport accident that caused spinal injuries, as well as retaliation, harassment, and equal protection violations related to work assignments. After the Supreme Court remanded the case on procedural exhaustion issues, the district court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims against Morrison, Opanasenko, the state, and the MDOC. The court granted the motion in full, finding no genuine issues of material fact because Jones failed to show evidence supporting his constitutional claims, his requests for injunctive relief were moot due to his release from the relevant facility, and respondeat superior liability could not apply to the state entities. Claims against other originally named defendants had been dismissed earlier.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved defendant George Williams, who faced federal charges including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, health care fraud, and unlawful payments related to a scheme using fake patients and Medicare billing to obtain and distribute prescription drugs. Williams moved to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps on phones used by him and a co-defendant, arguing that the supporting affidavits failed to satisfy the necessity requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c) by not adequately showing that other investigative methods were insufficient. The court denied the motion, finding that the affidavits from the DEA agent sufficiently detailed the investigation's progress, the limitations of traditional techniques like surveillance and informants, and the need for wire interceptions to achieve the investigation's goals. The decision applied the statutory standards for authorizing wiretaps and concluded that the applications met all requirements for the initial orders and their extensions.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

This case involves a dispute over personal liability for unpaid pharmaceutical purchases: Harvard Drug Group, a wholesale medication distributor, sought to enforce a June 2008 guaranty signed by Stephen Linehan (Chairman and CEO of Soporex) covering up to $2 million in Soporex's new invoices, plus 7.5% interest under a later amendment to the parties' purchase agreement. Linehan raised defenses including duress, fraudulent inducement, and equitable estoppel, arguing that Harvard misled him about another executive's willingness to co-sign a smaller guaranty and that the amendment altered his obligations. The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's report, rejected the objections for lack of supporting evidence in the record, found the defenses without merit, and granted Harvard's motion for summary judgment on liability under the guaranty. The court held that Linehan remained bound by the original terms and that the amendment did not release or modify his personal guarantee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a taxpayer's lawsuit seeking a refund of a 2001 overpayment that the IRS applied to alleged tax liabilities from prior years dating back to 1980. The plaintiff argued that the assessments for those years were erroneous or barred by the statute of limitations. After reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation with modifications, granting the government's motion for the tax years 1980, 1995, and 1998 through 2000, while denying it for 1984. The decision was based on an analysis of settlement agreements, offers in compromise, and applicable tax laws and limitations periods.

taxesprocedure

This case involves Sharee Miller's federal habeas corpus petition challenging her state convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and second-degree murder as an aider and abettor in the 1999 killing of her husband. After granting the writ conditionally and ordering retrial or release, the district court addressed the Warden's motion to stay the writ pending appeal and Miller's motion for bail. The court denied the stay and granted bail on a $20,000 surety bond, reasoning that Miller posed minimal risk of flight or danger to the public given her community ties, family connections, lack of violent history, and the balance of factors under relevant precedent for release during appeals of habeas grants. The decision emphasized Miller's substantial local support network and low flight risk over the Warden's unsubstantiated public safety concerns.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church filing a Form I-360 petition with USCIS to obtain a special immigrant visa for Father Ivan Telebzda so he could serve as a religious worker assisting the Church's archbishop. USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office denied the petition on multiple grounds, including failure to prove the Church qualified as a tax-exempt religious organization under IRC §501(c)(3), inability to pay the proffered wage, and lack of evidence that Telebzda had continuous full-time ministerial employment in the prior two years. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking judicial review. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the agency's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because its regulatory interpretation was reasonable and plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to submit required documentation but failed to do so.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved a petition by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board seeking a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA against a nursing home operator. The employer had withdrawn recognition from the SEIU union representing its employees after receiving employee petitions indicating a majority no longer supported the union, and it subsequently raised wages; the union alleged that the employer had unlawfully interfered with the decertification process in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The court granted the injunction, ordering the employer to recognize the union and maintain the status quo for up to four months or until the Board resolved the underlying complaint, denied the employer's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and declared its motion to strike moot. The court found reasonable cause to believe the withdrawal was based on tainted petitions and that temporary relief was just and proper to preserve the Board's remedial authority, while limiting the injunction's duration to encourage expeditious Board proceedings.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a debtor's appeal of a bankruptcy court's order dismissing his Chapter 13 petition for lack of good faith. The debtor had filed for Chapter 13 relief after becoming ineligible for Chapter 7 due to a prior discharge, proposing a plan that paid a very small percentage of unsecured debts over 36 months. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case sua sponte, viewing the plan as an improper attempt to circumvent Chapter 7 restrictions without providing a meaningful dividend to creditors. On appeal, the district court reversed and remanded, holding that the bankruptcy court failed to apply the required totality-of-the-circumstances analysis using the twelve Caldwell factors to assess good faith. The court noted that a small dividend alone does not establish bad faith and that the Chapter 13 trustee had waived objections on the issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. West, defendants charged in a drug conspiracy case moved for discovery of unredacted affidavits supporting a wiretap order on a phone number, pen register orders and supporting documents, and pen register surveillance records to aid their motion to suppress the electronic surveillance evidence. The court granted the request for unredacted affidavits (with a restriction that defense counsel not share them with defendants) and for the pen register records, finding they could help challenge the affidavit's probable cause showing, but denied the request for the pen register orders and supporting documents. The court followed precedents allowing limited disclosure of such materials when relevant to the defense while protecting ongoing investigations and confidential sources. The decision balanced defendants' need for information to contest the wiretap authorization against government interests in secrecy.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a $1.525 million commercial loan from Monroe Bank & Trust to Jessco Homes of Ohio, LLC, guaranteed by Jeffrey Stahl, for the purchase of a subdivision; the loan documents lacked an interest-carry provision that defendants claimed had been orally promised. The bank sued for breach of the note and guaranty after payments were not made, and defendants counterclaimed for fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation plus rescission, alleging the bank misrepresented the loan terms. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment in part by dismissing the innocent misrepresentation counterclaim, but denied it as to the breach claims and the fraudulent misrepresentation and rescission counterclaims. It found genuine issues of material fact on whether the bank made a fraudulent misrepresentation about the interest provision and whether defendants waived any fraud claim by making later interest payments. The court noted that rescission could proceed only if the fraud claim survived and required return of consideration.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, petitioner Bruce Michael Guilmette sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his Michigan state conviction for first-degree home invasion arising from a 1999 incident at a residence in Howell. The district court granted the writ after determining that Guilmette's trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the facts adequately and failing to challenge the prosecution's evidence on the element of entry into the dwelling, which rested solely on an unauthenticated photograph of a partial footprint taken by the homeowner after police had left the scene. The court noted that Michigan law requires proof of entry as an essential element of the offense and that counsel's omissions deprived Guilmette of a reasonably likely chance of acquittal. The opinion addresses procedural default issues but concludes that the ineffective assistance claim warrants relief.

criminal lawprocedure