John Baylor Nalbandian

In LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc., two Ohio homeowners sued the operator of the PropertyShark website, alleging violations of Ohio’s statutory and common-law right of publicity because the site included their names, home addresses, purchase prices, and other property details in reports accessible to paying users without their consent. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege their identities had independent commercial value, a required element under Ohio law, and distinguished the case from precedents involving more targeted commercial use of a persona. It rejected arguments for liberal statutory construction and found no basis to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court, concluding that the missing element alone warranted dismissal.

torts & liabilityproperty

William Powell Company, an Ohio valve manufacturer, sued Aviva Insurance Limited (successor to its Scottish insurer General Accident) for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that Aviva must honor roughly $27 million in remaining coverage under 1950s–1970s general-liability policies for ongoing asbestos claims. The district court granted Aviva’s motion to dismiss, accepting Aviva’s argument that a 1981 New York “domestication” agreement between General Accident and its U.S. subsidiary had transferred and extinguished the Scottish insurer’s obligations. The Sixth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that the complaint’s well-pled allegations—that General Accident itself issued the Ohio policies, never notified or obtained Powell’s consent to any assignment, and remained liable—must be taken as true at the pleading stage. The court further reasoned that the district court could not properly rely on the one-sided domestication agreement to end the case without converting the motion to summary judgment and allowing Powell discovery into the agreement’s scope and effect.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Brock, the government charged Leslie Brock with conspiring to distribute fentanyl, the use of which caused the death of N.C., after Brock sold fentanyl to Brendan Miller, who mailed it to N.C. in Alabama. A jury convicted Brock following trial evidence that N.C., experiencing fentanyl withdrawal, used the mailed fentanyl, appeared heavily intoxicated during a video call, and was found dead the next day with fentanyl in her blood and oral cavity, alongside cocaine. Brock appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the fentanyl she supplied caused the death or that it was the same fentanyl involved. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury could reasonably find causation based on the timeline, N.C.’s statements and condition, the location of the remaining fentanyl near her body, and expert testimony on fentanyl’s effects, and that the presence of cocaine did not create an evidentiary gap precluding that conclusion.

criminal law

In United States v. Joe’Veon Penson Willis, the defendant pled guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises and aiding and abetting false statements during firearm purchases after a raid on the house he shared with his half-brother uncovered large quantities of methamphetamine and fentanyl along with multiple guns, including firearms bought through a straw purchaser. Willis challenged his 135-month below-Guidelines sentence, arguing that the two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises double-counted the same conduct punished by the underlying offense and that drugs found in common areas should not have been attributed to him. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the enhancement did not constitute double-counting because the base offense and the enhancement addressed distinct aspects of the conduct and that the drug attribution was proper under relevant-conduct rules. The court noted that the sentences on the two firearm counts exceeded the statutory maximum but found the error harmless because the sentences ran concurrently, so correcting it would not change the total term of imprisonment or affect Willis’s substantial rights.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Coffee Capital hired RPT Restaurant Accounting Services to handle financial tasks including third-party wire transfers under a written contract. After a fraudster impersonated a Coffee Capital executive via hacked email and obtained an unauthorized transfer of over $100,000, Coffee Capital sued RPT for negligence when it refused reimbursement. The district court granted summary judgment to RPT, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Michigan law bars a tort claim arising from a contractual relationship unless the defendant breached a duty separate and distinct from its contractual obligations; here, RPT’s duty to transfer funds only as authorized derived solely from the parties’ agreement, so no independent common-law duty existed to support a negligence action.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Jolena Brown, a Black woman employed by FCA US LLC since 1999 in various human-resources roles, sued the company under Title VII and Michigan law after her 2021 termination, alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation. Brown’s performance had declined starting in 2017, leading to documented concerns from multiple supervisors, a 2018 internal racial-discrimination complaint against one supervisor that FCA investigated and found unsubstantiated (though it adjusted her rating), repeated job transfers, a performance-improvement plan, and eventual firing for ongoing issues like missed deadlines, poor communication, and unreliability. The district court granted summary judgment to FCA on the Title VII claims and dismissed the state claims without prejudice, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Brown failed to show her termination was pretextual or that any protected activity—such as her single 2018 complaint or unrelated reports—was causally linked to discrimination or retaliation under Title VII.

civil rightslabor & employment

Donald Cross pled guilty to bank fraud after submitting fake invoices to draw on his company's line of credit from Cornerstone Community Bank, and the district court sentenced him to prison plus $2.8 million in restitution. Years later, after the bank foreclosed on and sold his properties and he made other payments, Cross moved to offset or eliminate the remaining restitution balance, subpoenaed the bank's successor SmartBank for records, and opposed the government's request for his financial information. The district court denied the offset motion, quashed the subpoena, granted the motion to compel, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the actual recoveries credited to the bank fell short of full repayment, that the subpoena sought irrelevant or unduly burdensome information from a victim after the offset claim failed, and that the district court properly exercised its discretion in relying on its prior findings to compel discovery.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved TwinSpires, an Oregon-based platform operated by Churchill Downs that accepts interstate pari-mutuel wagers on horseraces under the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), which requires consent only from the bettor’s state and the racetrack’s home state. Michigan revoked TwinSpires’ license under the Michigan Horse Racing Law after it stopped complying with Michigan regulations, prompting TwinSpires to sue and claim federal preemption. The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement, which the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that TwinSpires was likely to succeed on the merits because the IHA preempts Michigan’s additional licensing requirement for interstate off-track wagering, while the balance of harms and public interest favored TwinSpires.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Jorge Andujar and Franklin Pena Batista, former delivery drivers for Hub Group Trucking, Inc., sued the company in a putative class action alleging violations of New Jersey wage payment and wage and hour laws through paycheck deductions, un-reimbursed work expenses, and unpaid overtime. The drivers’ contracts contained choice-of-law clauses designating Tennessee law and a Tennessee forum; after the case was transferred to the Western District of Tennessee, the district court enforced those clauses and dismissed the complaint because Tennessee law does not recognize the New Jersey statutory claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the choice-of-law provisions unenforceable under Tennessee law because no material connection existed between Tennessee and the parties’ transactions or employment, which occurred almost entirely out of a New Jersey terminal for a company headquartered in Illinois.

labor & employmentprocedure

Dominga Sanik Herrera, a Guatemalan native who entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994, was ordered removed in absentia in 1997 after failing to appear at a hearing for which notice was sent to an address she had provided. In 2010 she moved to reopen on lack-of-notice grounds but did not respond to the immigration judge’s request for supporting evidence, so the motion was denied; she filed a second identical motion in 2020, which the IJ and Board of Immigration Appeals rejected as barred by the regulatory limit of one motion to reopen an in-absentia order. The Sixth Circuit denied Herrera’s petition in part, holding that she failed to exhaust any challenge to the number bar by omitting it from her Board brief, and dismissed the remainder for lack of jurisdiction over the Board’s discretionary refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. The court also rejected her due-process claim, finding the Board’s explanation that the number bar disposed of the case sufficient under circuit precedent.

immigrationprocedure

Scott Sedore, a Michigan prisoner who uses a wheelchair, sued the Michigan Department of Corrections, two nurses, and a doctor, alleging First Amendment retaliation for grievances and litigation over his medical care, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act stemming from his placement in segregated housing without adequate accommodations. After a four-day jury trial in which Sedore lost, he appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing five-hour time limits per side and by granting a motion to quash his subpoena for the prison warden’s testimony. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Sedore ordered only a 51-page partial transcript covering limited portions of the trial (such as arguments on the subpoena and time limits) but omitted the actual trial testimony and exhibits. Without a complete record, Sedore could not demonstrate that any alleged errors were prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

Amy Lynn Cook pleaded guilty to producing child pornography after she recorded herself sexually abusing a nine-month-old infant she was babysitting and uploaded the material online. At sentencing, the district court applied two four-level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1—one because the victim was under age twelve and another because the images depicted an infant or toddler—resulting in a guidelines range capped at the 30-year statutory maximum. Cook appealed, arguing that applying both enhancements constituted impermissible double counting of the same conduct. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the enhancements address distinct harms: the first targets the general vulnerability of minors under twelve, while the second targets the unique defenselessness of infants and toddlers plus the heightened depravity of such offenses, consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s structure and intent in the guidelines.

criminal law

Gustavo Adolfo Osabas-Rivera, a Honduran citizen, petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. He claimed persecution by MS gang members who targeted him and his brother over soccer-team loyalties and gang recruitment, including a kidnapping and ongoing threats. The Sixth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to excuse the untimely asylum application due to lack of extraordinary circumstances. On the withholding claim, the court concluded Osabas-Rivera had abandoned the dispositive issue of whether the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect him, because he failed to challenge the immigration judge’s adverse finding in his brief to the Board. The court therefore dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, without addressing the CAT claim, which was not pursued on review.

immigration

In United States v. Jameel Anthony Dion Tanzil, the government appealed a district court order suppressing evidence obtained from a search of the defendant’s cell phone. Tanzil, a convicted felon, was indicted for possessing ammunition after a warrant-based search of his iPhone turned up relevant evidence; the search stemmed from his suspected involvement in two shootings and an attempted gun purchase in Michigan. The district court ruled that the federal affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause linking the phone to the alleged crimes. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the good-faith exception applied because the affidavit contained specific factual allegations—Tanzil’s own statements about phone evidence, his use of Snapchat to photograph guns that were later stolen, and location data—allowing officers to reasonably rely on the magistrate’s warrant even if probable cause was lacking. The court declined to resolve the broader Fourth Amendment question of the required “nexus” for cell-phone searches.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Alexandria Parrotta sued her former employer, the Island Resort and Casino, alleging that it forced her to resign rather than accommodating her needs as a new mother, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the casino is owned and operated by the Hannahville Indian Community, a federally recognized tribe, which possesses sovereign immunity from suit in federal court unless the tribe clearly waives that immunity or Congress unequivocally abrogates it. Parrotta’s argument that the tribe’s constitution waived immunity by pledging compliance with applicable federal laws was rejected, as that language did not meet the requirement of an explicit waiver, and the tribe’s separate sovereignty code further confirmed that no such waiver had occurred. The court noted that while the FLSA’s substantive requirements apply to the tribe, this does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue the tribe in court.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Slaughter, the defendant, while on probation for a prior felony, was charged with a federal firearm offense based on the same conduct that had initially led to dismissed state charges; he had already served some time in state custody before entering federal proceedings. After pleading guilty, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 37–46 months and imposed a 42-month sentence, rejecting Slaughter’s requests for a downward variance or departure to credit his prior time served due to concerns over potential double-counting by the Bureau of Prisons and unclear evidence about the exact periods and reasons for state custody. Slaughter appealed, arguing that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to adequately address his time-served mitigation argument tied to the presentence report. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court had sufficiently considered all nonfrivolous arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, had no obligation to adjust the sentence itself for time served, and properly left credit calculations to the Bureau of Prisons.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In United States v. Matthews and Livingston, two defendants who participated in a Kentucky-based fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking operation appealed their federal sentences after pleading guilty to drug (and, for Matthews, firearm) offenses. The Sixth Circuit affirmed both sentences, holding that the district court correctly applied a Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(13) because the defendants distributed fentanyl pills designed to resemble oxycodone. The court rejected Livingston’s additional claims, finding his ineffective-assistance argument premature on direct appeal, the denial of a downward departure for reduced mental capacity unreviewable because the district court knew it had authority to depart but declined to do so, and the imposition of a supervised-release condition allowing searches of electronic devices free of plain error given the court’s public-safety concerns.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Carmen Odalis Cabrera-Hernandez, a Honduran citizen who entered the United States unlawfully in 2014, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after testifying that gang members had twice threatened to kidnap her as a child and that she feared further harm if returned. An immigration judge denied relief, concluding that her proposed particular social groups—“Honduran women,” “Honduran females between the ages of 5 and 21,” and “Honduran females between the ages of 15 and 24”—were not legally cognizable, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on that basis. The Sixth Circuit denied her petition for review, holding that the proposed groups were too broad to satisfy the particularity requirement for a cognizable particular social group. Because that single issue was dispositive, the court did not reach her arguments concerning nexus to a protected ground or her CAT claim.

immigration

In United States v. Kalib Tucker, the defendant, a felon with prior convictions for a drive-by shooting into an occupied home and a violent burglary, pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after parole officers found a loaded Glock, ammunition, and drugs at his residence. The district court varied upward from the Guidelines range and imposed a 57-month sentence, citing Tucker’s quick return to crime after release, additional contraband, pretrial misconduct, and danger to the community. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, ruling the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable because the district court properly calculated the Guidelines, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and explained why a Guidelines sentence was inadequate. The court also rejected Tucker’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge, concluding that his history of violent crimes against persons made him a dangerous felon under historical traditions, consistent with circuit precedent.

gunscriminal lawcivil rights

In United States v. Omar Shorter, Jr., the defendant was convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Michigan of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a federal license under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) and making false statements on purchase forms under § 922(a)(6). The charges stemmed from Shorter’s purchase of 39 guns over roughly two and a half years, his admission that he sold most of them, and evidence that he bought guns for others (including using Cash App payments from the Berryman brothers) while filling out forms claiming the purchases were for himself. On appeal, Shorter argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he operated as a dealer for profit rather than as a collector. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, applying the manifest-miscarriage-of-justice standard because Shorter had not moved for acquittal at trial, and held that the combination of volume of purchases, his admissions, transaction records, and text messages expressing frustration over lack of payment was enough for a jury to infer he was repetitively selling guns with an intent to profit.

gunscriminal law