Paul D. Borman

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.

civil rightstorts & liability

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.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a multidistrict antitrust litigation in which indirect purchasers of packaged ice sued manufacturers Reddy Ice, Arctic Glacier, and Home City, alleging a conspiracy to allocate customers and markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act along with related state antitrust and consumer protection statutes; the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, treble damages, and class certification. The court ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), as well as related issues of standing and personal jurisdiction. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing certain state-law claims (including those from Idaho, Kansas, and Montana due to class-action restrictions intertwined with substantive rights) while permitting others to proceed after determining that class certification questions were logically antecedent to standing and that federal pleading standards were satisfied for the remaining claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a nonprofit organization, Center for Community Justice and Advocacy, suing RBS Citizens and its subsidiary CCO Mortgage for alleged racial discrimination in mortgage loan origination, refinancing, servicing, and foreclosures, primarily disadvantaging African American borrowers in Detroit relative to white borrowers in Grosse Pointe, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, civil rights statutes, a HAMP contract, and Michigan civil rights law. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked standing because its alleged diversion of resources was based on conclusory assertions without evidence of comparable clients or properties, and the complaint failed to state a claim as the HMDA data and foreclosure examples did not allege similarly situated borrowers or provide facts showing discriminatory treatment.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought by purchasers of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. stock against the company and several of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The complaint claims that defendants failed to disclose participation in unlawful market allocation agreements in the packaged ice industry, which were the subject of parallel antitrust litigation and government investigations, leading to investor losses when the information became public. The court denied motions to dismiss filed by Reddy Ice, Brick, Janusek, and Weaver, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged scienter based on the company's ethics code, public statements, and other facts, but granted Booth's motion to dismiss due to inadequate particularized allegations against him individually. The court also granted defendants' motion to supplement the record with recent SEC filings regarding the DOJ investigation.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit brought by plaintiff Weinstein against Siemens, the employer of Thomas Wellinger, who caused a fatal car accident while intoxicated after being directed by Siemens to attend a doctor's appointment related to his alcohol issues. The specific opinion addresses Siemens' motions in limine to exclude written statements made by various Siemens employees about Wellinger's behavior and job performance, which were prepared following police interviews arranged by the company. The court denied the motions, ruling that the statements qualify as non-hearsay admissions by a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) because Siemens authorized and encouraged the employees to provide the information on relevant topics. The core reasoning focused on the employees' authorization to speak about workplace matters tied to Wellinger's alcohol abuse, which directly relates to the plaintiff's claims of vicarious liability and negligent supervision, while noting that other evidentiary rules like relevance and foundation must still be satisfied at trial.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a defendant arrested in Michigan after a traffic stop of his tractor-trailer led to the discovery of hidden marijuana among a load of broccoli. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to an improper stop and lack of valid consent. The court denied the motion after a hearing, finding the stop was justified by observed license and weight violations under Michigan law, the defendant voluntarily consented to the search in English without coercion or arrest, and the officer's observations provided further justification for examining the cargo. The court credited the officer's testimony over the defendant's conflicting account regarding consent and language ability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Charles Bye, a former insurance agent for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, who sued after operating under financed community agent, independent contractor, and corporate agency agreements, claiming that Nationwide's business decisions and representations led to the failure of his agencies and unpaid loans. Bye asserted claims including fraudulent inducement, silent fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, alleging misrepresentations about business opportunities, profitability, and support. The court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment on counts I, II, IV, and V, finding the agreements explicitly permitted Nationwide to alter premiums, lines of business, or market participation without notice or consent, and that alleged misrepresentations concerned future conduct or non-actionable opinions rather than past or present facts. It requested supplemental briefing on count III for breach of contract and held ruling in abeyance on Nationwide's counterclaims for amounts owed on loans.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved six employees who alleged that their self-insured employer Cassens Transport Company, its claims adjuster Crawford & Company, and a doctor, Dr. Saul Margules, engaged in a scheme of mail and wire fraud by selecting unqualified physicians to issue false medical opinions that resulted in the denial of workers' compensation benefits under the Michigan Workers' Disability Compensation Act. The plaintiffs brought civil claims under the federal RICO statute seeking triple damages for the alleged fraud. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, and dismissed the entire case with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the WDCA provides the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy through its administrative scheme, foreclosing a separate RICO action; additionally, the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury to business or property cognizable under RICO, and the court would have abstained pending final administrative determinations even if the claims were otherwise viable.

labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

This case, brought under Title VII and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, involves an African American IT technician who alleged that his employer failed to promptly address racially derogatory comments from a white coworker, creating a hostile work environment, and that he was terminated in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims but denied it on the hostile work environment claims. The core reasoning was that factual disputes existed as to the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and the adequacy of the employer's response, precluding summary judgment on those claims, while the plaintiff could not establish the elements of retaliation or pretext.

civil rightslabor & employment

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Gregory Edwards, a former GMAC employee, who sued Metropolitan Life Insurance Company after it denied his claim for long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan. Edwards argued that he had provided sufficient objective medical evidence of disabling conditions, including chronic pain and functional limitations following surgery, that prevented him from performing his sedentary job. MetLife maintained that the administrative record lacked adequate documentation of functional impairments meeting the plan's definition of disability during the elimination period and beyond. The court granted MetLife's motion to affirm the administrator's denial and denied Edwards's motion to reverse it, holding that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the plan gave the administrator discretionary authority and the record supported the conclusion that objective evidence of qualifying disability was insufficient. The court applied the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review to the final October 2008 determination based solely on the administrative record.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves homeowners who suffered a fire at their Michigan residence, leading to a covered insurance claim with State Farm for repairs and alternative living expenses (ALE). After disagreements over the scope of damages, including a report on smoke-related contaminants, the parties began an appraisal process under the policy and state law, but State Farm later halted ALE payments and withdrew from appraisal, citing uncovered losses and delays. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to resume payments and the appraisal. The court granted the motion in part, ordering State Farm to continue paying $3,000 monthly rent and about $1,000 monthly for rental furniture for 60 days while the appraisal concludes. The reasoning centered on State Farm having already conceded coverage for the fire loss, making the extent of damages (but not new coverage issues) appropriate for appraisal, and distinguishing precedents where coverage was fully denied.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Estate of Sarah M. Davenport seeking a $262,932 refund of federal estate taxes paid after an IRS audit and Tax Court ruling on the inclusion of two annuities in the gross estate. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the refund suit. The core reasoning was that the Estate failed to file an administrative claim for refund with the IRS prior to filing the lawsuit, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), which limits the waiver of sovereign immunity for such actions; alternatively, the claim was barred by res judicata due to the prior final Tax Court judgment where the deduction issue could have been raised.

taxesprocedurefederal power

This case is a patent infringement action in which Hochstein alleged that Microsoft's Xbox infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,292,125, an invention allowing remote video game players to compete and communicate over telephone lines. The dispute centered on construing the claim term "electrically connected," specifically whether it encompasses electromagnetic induction. The court rejected the special master's recommendation to include electromagnetic induction, sustained Microsoft's objections based on the intrinsic evidence and prior claim construction, and denied Hochstein's motion for reconsideration. As a result, the court dismissed the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's claims against his mortgage lender for fraudulent and predatory loan terms originating in 2003, including misrepresentations on loan documents and failure to disclose charges, as well as inadequate responses to qualified written requests under RESPA. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that most claims were barred by statutes of limitations, the fraud allegations lacked particularity, and the defendant had adequately responded to the QWRs with required information. The reasoning centered on the plaintiff's delay in bringing claims more than six years after closing, the application of time bars to fraud and conversion claims, and the sufficiency of the defendant's disclosures under federal law.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge by George Saieg, a Christian pastor seeking to distribute religious literature while walking at the annual Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, against restrictions imposed by the City and its police chief. The plaintiff alleged violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech, association, and religious exercise, as well as equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, after being limited to handbilling only from designated booths or tables rather than on public sidewalks within the festival perimeters. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and request for injunctive relief, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and upheld the restrictions. It reasoned that the streets functioned as a fairground during the event, the across-the-board ban on handbilling was a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that served significant government interests in crowd control and safety, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels for communication, consistent with precedents such as Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights