This case involved the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's intervention in a lawsuit against defendants, including Lloyd Carr & Co. and Alan Abrahams, alleging fraud, inadequate disclosures, and improper order execution in the solicitation and sale of commodity options under CFTC regulations (17 C.F.R. §§ 32.5, 32.8, 32.9) and the Commodity Exchange Act. The court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment, awarding permanent injunctive relief, appointment of an equity receiver, an accounting, and disgorgement of benefits derived from the violations. The decision rested on undisputed evidence from a prior preliminary injunction, findings of contempt, criminal convictions and guilty pleas of the defendants for related mail and wire fraud, and the defendants' failure to provide required records or comply with regulatory mandates.
This case involves a desegregation lawsuit against the Kalamazoo Board of Education, where the court previously ordered the recall of black tenured teachers and a 4:1 ratio for future recalls to reach 20% black faculty. The Kalamazoo Education Association moved for a partial stay pending appeal of an order that would allow hiring a new black probationary teacher instead of recalling qualified white tenured teachers. The court denied the stay after evaluating the four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, harm to other parties, and public interest, finding that the balance favored maintaining the order to remedy past constitutional violations in faculty hiring.
This case involves a dispute between Native American tribes and the State of Michigan over fishing regulations in the Great Lakes pursuant to treaty rights. The tribes sought to modify existing court-ordered regulations by implementing new ones from their Treaty Fishery Management Authority. The court granted the motion for an injunction and modification of the decree, allowing the new regulations to govern tribal fishing for the 1982 season, including total allowable catch limits. The decision was based on the court's authority to modify prior orders due to changed circumstances, the tribes' likelihood of success on the merits, protection of the fishery resource, and the public interest in upholding treaty rights.
The case involved a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement on the Bennetts' home by First Savings & Loan Association, followed by a sheriff's sale where First Savings was the sole bidder. The Bennetts filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition before the one-year statutory redemption period expired, listing the mortgage arrearages in their plan, which triggered an automatic stay. After the redemption period passed, First Savings sought an order for possession and to lift the stay, but the bankruptcy court denied relief, finding the property necessary to the plan and the creditor's interest adequately protected by equity in the home. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the statutory right of redemption became part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, the confirmed plan bound the creditor, and the standards for modifying the stay under § 362(d) were not met. The court noted that the debtors could cure defaults and maintain payments if the petition was filed timely, without addressing broader issues not properly raised.
This case involves a class action lawsuit by teachers challenging the maternity leave and related policies of several Michigan school districts as constituting sex discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged that the policies, which included requirements for advance notice of pregnancy, mandatory leave start dates, medical verifications, limits on benefits like sick pay and seniority during pregnancy leave, and differences in reinstatement compared to other disabilities, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, noting that the parties largely agreed on the facts of the policies. It reasoned that the Elliott-Larsen Act explicitly prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy as a form of sex discrimination, while Title VII, as amended effective in 1978, similarly defines sex discrimination to include pregnancy-related conditions, making disparate treatment of pregnancy leave unlawful absent a bona fide occupational qualification.
This case involves female teachers in Michigan school districts alleging that their employers discriminated against them by treating pregnancy-related disabilities differently from other temporary disabilities, in violation of Title VII, Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The court considered multiple pretrial motions, including reconsideration of plaintiff and defendant class certifications, abstention from the state-law claim, partial summary judgment on liability, and bifurcation of the trial. It declined to abstain from the Elliot-Larsen claim, held the summary-judgment motions under advisement because of possible factual disputes, and ordered that liability and remedies be tried separately under Rule 42(b) for reasons of convenience and efficiency.
