Gerald Ellis Rosen

The case involves the minor children of Tamara Greene, who was killed in a 2003 drive-by shooting, suing the City of Detroit and former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They allege that the defendants deliberately obstructed the police investigation into the murder, violating the children's constitutional right of access to the courts by preventing a potential wrongful death lawsuit against the killer. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, with the City arguing no link to municipal policy and an alternative remedy available, and Kilpatrick contending a lack of evidence of his involvement in any obstruction. After extensive discovery, the court emphasized that only evidence tying interference to city policymakers or the mayor's actions is relevant, dismissing much of the uncovered information, such as rumors about a party at the Manoogian Mansion, as irrelevant or inadmissible. The opinion sets forth the court's analysis and rulings on these motions under the standards for municipal liability and denial of court access claims.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In this Chapter 13 bankruptcy appeal, debtors Zoltán and Mary Antal proposed a second amended plan that included a re-vesting provision keeping estate property (including post-petition earnings) in the estate after confirmation rather than vesting it in the debtors, in an effort to retain creditor protection after the automatic stay terminated as to Zoltán due to his prior filings. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected, arguing the provision circumvented the limits of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), and the bankruptcy court sustained the objection on bad faith grounds, confirming a third amended plan without the provision. On appeal, the district court affirmed, finding no error in the bankruptcy court's determination that the re-vesting mechanism amounted to an improper attempt to extend stay protection without satisfying the statutory requirements for demonstrating good faith.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by D & L Equipment Inc., in which the debtor disputed whether Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. had properly perfected its security interest in certain items of the debtor's inventory equipment. The bankruptcy court ruled that a UCC-1 financing statement originally filed by CIT (Wells Fargo's predecessor) and later amended and continued by Wells Fargo sufficiently identified the collateral, including equipment financed after Wells Fargo stepped into CIT's position. On appeal, the district court affirmed, reasoning that the collateral description referencing items financed under the floor plan arrangement, together with the recorded succession of the secured party, provided adequate notice to third parties under the UCC's notice-filing system and was not seriously misleading despite not expressly naming Wells Fargo as a financier.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned whether Auto Club Insurance Association could obtain reimbursement from Great American Insurance Group for over $150,000 in no-fault personal protection insurance benefits paid to Eric Joye after he was injured riding a dirt bike struck by a semi-truck. Joye had been operating a motorcycle reported stolen two weeks earlier, without the owner's permission or a valid driver's license or motorcycle endorsement. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment under Michigan Compiled Laws § 500.3113(a), which excludes benefits when a person uses a vehicle taken unlawfully unless they reasonably believed they were entitled to take and use it. The court determined that Joye had unlawfully taken the motorcycle and that the statutory safe-harbor provision did not apply because he lacked a reasonable belief of entitlement, given the absence of permission from the true owner and his unlicensed status. Accordingly, the benefits were excluded from coverage, precluding Auto Club's reimbursement claim against the truck's insurer.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The trustees of a union pension fund sued two related construction companies, F & G Poured Walls and Liparoto Construction, seeking an audit and payment of fringe benefit contributions under a collective bargaining agreement that F & G had signed with the Cement Masons' Union. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion, holding that the two companies were alter egos of each other. The decision rested on undisputed facts showing common ownership by Phil Liparoto and his wife, shared offices, equipment, staff, tax filings, insurance, and a complete absence of any contracts or payments between the entities, which allowed Liparoto to treat them interchangeably. Because the companies were alter egos, the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreement bound both, triggering the obligation to submit to an audit for unpaid contributions under ERISA.

labor & employment

This case involves a plaintiff who sued J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and Cintas in state court for state-law tort claims after allegedly tripping and falling at a Chase branch in Michigan. After removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Continental Interiors, a Michigan citizen, as a defendant. The court struck the amended complaint, ruling that a plaintiff cannot join a non-diverse party post-removal by amending as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Instead, joinder that would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction must be sought through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which requires the court to weigh factors such as the purpose of the amendment, timeliness, and equitable considerations before deciding whether to permit joinder and remand or deny it.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff John Satawa sued the Macomb County Road Commission after it denied his application to erect a Nativity scene on a median strip along Mound Road in Warren, Michigan, during the 2009 holiday season. Satawa alleged that the denial violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and against establishment of religion, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. The court assumed the median constituted a traditional public forum but held that the Commission's refusal was justified by a compelling governmental interest in maintaining traffic safety, specifically the risk that the display could obstruct motorists' sight lines at a busy intersection. The court further concluded that the denial satisfied the Lemon test and did not violate the Establishment Clause, as its purpose was secular and it neither endorsed nor disapproved of religion. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to the defendants and denied relief to the plaintiff.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Lillian Misleh sued defendant law firm Timothy E. Baxter & Associates after it sent a debt collection letter to her attorney regarding an alleged debt from a prior dismissed lawsuit, claiming violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Michigan Collection Practices Act (MCPA). Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the FDCPA does not apply to communications sent to a consumer's attorney rather than directly to the consumer, and that the MCPA does not regulate law firms as "regulated persons." The court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the FDCPA's text and purpose protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices even when communications are routed through counsel, and that letters to attorneys may therefore give rise to actionable claims under the statute's prohibitions on false, deceptive, or unfair means.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Thomas Whitaker's claim that his employer, U.S. Security Associates, Inc., retaliated against him in violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act after he reported security vulnerabilities at Detroit Metropolitan Airport to his supervisors and the Transportation Security Administration. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Whitaker had not engaged in protected activity, that no causal link existed between his reports and the adverse actions, and that any discipline was based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons rather than pretext. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient evidence that Whitaker's communications with the TSA constituted protected activity under the statute, that a reasonable jury could infer causation from the timing and circumstances of the discipline, and that factual disputes remained regarding whether the employer's stated reasons were pretextual.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Amaro Kecoye Seydi, a Senegalese native granted asylum in the U.S., who filed a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 702 to compel USCIS to adjudicate his pending Form I-485 application to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, which had been delayed since 2005 due to potential inadmissibility under terrorism-related grounds in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) while awaiting a discretionary exemption from DHS. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the INA's bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) on matters committed to agency discretion, or alternatively for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the pace of adjudicating adjustment applications involving discretionary exemptions from inadmissibility grounds is a matter committed to the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretion and thus unreviewable. The ruling emphasized that the statutory scheme precludes judicial intervention in the timing of such discretionary decisions.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In Hall v. Sky Chefs, Inc., plaintiff Tegra Hall, an African-American female former utility worker at the airline catering company, sued her employer and multiple co-workers and supervisors alleging race, gender, and religious discrimination and harassment under Title VII and Michigan’s ELCRA, retaliatory discharge under Title VII, ELCRA, FMLA, and Michigan’s WDCA, plus a common-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all seventeen counts. The court reasoned that Hall had not established prima facie cases of discrimination or hostile-work-environment harassment, had failed to show any causal connection between protected activity and her termination for the retaliation claims, and had identified no basis for liability against the individual defendants.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In Miller v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a former pharmacy technician sued her employer in Michigan state court under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act for alleged race and sex discrimination and retaliation in her termination, along with common-law claims of fraud and false imprisonment arising from an internal investigation into missing narcotics. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of her fraud claim due to contradictory signed statements, could not prove false imprisonment on the record, and did not make out a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because she lacked evidence of similarly situated comparators or pretext. The court also noted that the plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment largely failed to cite supporting record evidence.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

Plaintiff Jay Brown sued his former employer Ajax Paving Industries and related insurance and medical defendants under the federal RICO statute, alleging a scheme to deny him workers' compensation benefits for a 2005 workplace shoulder injury through actions such as attempting to bribe a witness and persuading a doctor to alter testimony at an administrative hearing. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to adequately allege required RICO elements, including a cognizable injury to business or property under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), consistent with recent dismissals of similar claims by other judges in the district; the court also noted that a prior settlement and release of claims further undermined the RICO allegations without needing to reach additional grounds such as exclusivity of the workers' compensation process.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract action in which Aleris Aluminum Canada (AAC), a Canadian aluminum producer, sued Behr America, Inc., an automotive components manufacturer, to recover payment for aluminum products that Behr retrieved from consignment warehouses in Ohio, South Carolina, and Mexico between January and December 2008. Behr acknowledged receiving the goods and owing approximately $2.59 million but disputed the full amount claimed and raised setoff issues related to a separate contract dispute. The court granted partial summary judgment to AAC, awarding $1,059,357.17 plus 5% prejudgment interest, reasoning that Behr had no valid defense to payment for the delivered product, the debt was a liquidated claim supported by invoices, and Michigan law entitled the plaintiff to interest on such amounts from the due dates until payment or judgment.

business & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement suit brought by Lear against Johnson Controls (JCI) concerning whether JCI's HomeLink product was used in a way that infringed Lear's patent claims. At trial, Lear sought to introduce survey data commissioned by JCI showing consumer programming of multiple buttons on HomeLink units, but JCI objected on hearsay grounds. The court ruled the survey responses admissible as adoptive admissions under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). The core reasoning was that JCI's direction of the surveys and its experts' reliance on the resulting data constituted adoption of the consumer statements, rendering them non-hearsay when offered against JCI.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Phillip Zabawa, who was charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, intimidating, impeding, and interfering with a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b) after an incident at a U.S. Marshals lock-up facility while awaiting a court hearing. Following a bench trial, the court found Zabawa guilty on Count One of the indictment. The court's findings of fact established that Zabawa became noncompliant, made threatening statements about acquiring a gun, and then physically assaulted a deputy marshal during efforts to restrain him, resulting in bodily injury to the officer while he was performing official duties. The court concluded that the government had proven all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of multiple officers and supporting exhibits.

criminal law

This case involved a plaintiff's challenge to the 2009 foreclosure and subsequent eviction proceedings on his Michigan property, following a 2007 mortgage loan from the defendant banks, with claims including violations of state foreclosure statutes, requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, quiet title, civil conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract, RESPA, and the Fair Housing Act. After prior state court rulings against the plaintiff on possession and related matters, the defendants moved to dismiss the federal action. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing Counts V through XI with prejudice, and remanded Counts I through IV to state court. The core reasoning was that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction over claims inextricably intertwined with prior state court judgments on foreclosure and eviction, while the FHA and other claims were time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a mother and her elementary school son challenging Holly Area Schools' policies that prevented the distribution of invitations and flyers promoting religious summer camps and church events. Plaintiffs alleged viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment when school officials stopped the student from handing out sealed envelopes in class or hallways and denied the mother access to the school's flyer forum for outside materials. On the motion for preliminary injunction, the court ruled that the student could distribute religious materials to classmates during non-instructional time subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and that the mother could submit materials for distribution through the flyer forum. The court declined to address the facial constitutionality of Policy 9370 at this stage, finding it had not been applied to cause injury and that the issue was better resolved on a full record. The decision rested on principles prohibiting viewpoint-based restrictions on speech in school settings while recognizing schools' authority to impose neutral regulations.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved a plaintiff seeking no-fault automobile insurance benefits in Wayne County Circuit Court after sustaining injuries in a 2009 car accident as a passenger in a vehicle insured by defendant Hartford. Hartford removed the action to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, but the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that complete diversity was lacking. The court granted the motion to remand and returned the case to state court. It reasoned that under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), because the action was a direct claim against the insurer and the insured was a Michigan citizen not joined as a defendant, Hartford was deemed a Michigan citizen as well, eliminating diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that Michigan's no-fault scheme functions like the direct action statutes that prompted this statutory provision.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerns Amway Global's petition to confirm an arbitration award against former Independent Business Owners Orrin and Laurie Woodward, Chris and Terri Brady, and Tim and Amy Marks, who were found liable for breach of contract and tortious interference after allegedly soliciting other IBOs to leave Amway and join a competitor. The arbitrator awarded Amway approximately $25.8 million in total damages. Respondents moved to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that the underlying agreement was unenforceable and raising other challenges to arbitrability and the proceedings. The court applied the deferential standard of review under the FAA and concluded there was no basis to disturb the arbitrator's rulings on arbitrability.

business & regulatoryprocedure