This case involved the estate of John Fahner, who was murdered by fellow inmate Sean Pollard while both were held in a Wayne County Jail holding cell awaiting court appearances in 2006. The plaintiff sued the county, sheriff's department officials, and various officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to safety risks, along with related claims of supervisory liability, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Michigan law, alleging failures in inmate processing, background checks, and housing decisions. The court granted summary judgment to all remaining defendants, holding that the evidence did not show the defendants knew of or disregarded a substantial risk to Fahner, that supervisory liability was unsupported, that governmental immunity barred the negligence claim, and that the facts were insufficient for an emotional distress claim.
This case involved plaintiffs Raymond and Lana Elder suing Harrison Township and several of its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising from disputes over permits, inspections, condemnations, and enforcement actions during the construction of their home. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by res judicata. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs could and should have raised these claims in a prior related lawsuit (Elder II) that was dismissed with prejudice, that the claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence, and that the individual defendants were in privity with the township for purposes of issue preclusion.
This employment dispute arose when plaintiff Carolyn Chambers, an administrative assistant and office manager appointed by Detroit City Councilwoman Martha Reeves, resigned after conflicts over staff timekeeping, pay disparities, and alleged discriminatory treatment, leading to claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and wrongful termination against the City of Detroit, City Council, Reeves, and Stephens. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing the IIED claim for lack of sufficiently outrageous conduct, the hostile work environment claim, state tort claims against the City and Council on governmental immunity grounds, and the tortious interference claim against Reeves. It denied summary judgment on the remaining claims, including federal disparate treatment and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, state ELCRA discrimination and retaliation claims, civil conspiracy, and certain tort claims against Stephens and Reeves, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded dismissal.
This case involves Plaintiff Jane Doe suing Defendants Erik Peterson and his father Lee Peterson after nude photos she took of herself as a minor were posted on an adult website operated by Erik. Plaintiff alleged claims including invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a civil cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(f) related to the display of child pornography. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts claims but denied it as to the remaining claims. It found that Plaintiff has standing under the federal statute and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Erik knew or was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's minor status when continuing to post the images, whether his conduct was outrageous enough for an IIED claim, and whether his use of a family partnership entity for the websites fell within the scope of the partnership agreement.
The case involved Sherry Schmidli, the former Director of the Fraser Public Library, who sued the City of Fraser and various city officials after her termination, claiming violations of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the People with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, defamation, and gender discrimination under the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that Schmidli failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims, including that her complaints about library governance and millage use were not protected whistleblowing activity, there was no evidence of FMLA interference or retaliation, her defamation and disability claims lacked support, and she was not similarly situated to a prior male library director for purposes of showing gender discrimination.
This case was a trademark and copyright dispute in which Innovation Ventures, the maker of 5-Hour Energy shots, sued N2G Distributing over a competing product called 6 Hour Energy Shot whose packaging used a similar red-yellow-black color scheme, mountain-climbing silhouette, and identical cautionary language. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the 5-Hour Energy mark had acquired secondary meaning through its market success and thus qualified for trademark protection, and that the defendants had infringed copyright by verbatim copying of the caution statement. These rulings rested on undisputed facts about the product's distinctiveness and the exact duplication of text. The court denied summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaims alleging tortious interference and related violations, finding that material factual issues remained for trial.
