This case involves multidistrict litigation over product liability claims related to the antibiotic Cleocin, transferred to the court for pretrial proceedings. After the parties stipulated to remand the individual actions back to their original courts, the plaintiffs sought clarification and modification of the remand order to limit post-remand discovery on common issues and a protective order against further depositions of their experts. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue further orders once the cases were remanded, as the remand effected a change of venue transferring authority to the transferor courts.
This case was a libel action brought by plaintiff Schultz against Newsweek and the Detroit News over articles describing him as an "underworld figure" or similar in connection with the investigation into Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Under Michigan law, the publications were protected by a qualified privilege applicable to matters of public interest, which required plaintiff to prove actual malice by the defendants. The court concluded that the record contained no evidence creating a triable issue of malice, as the circumstances cited by plaintiff were equally consistent with good-faith reporting, making summary judgment appropriate as a matter of law.
The plaintiff, a licensed dentist and member of the defendant professional associations, sued for breach of fiduciary duty after being denied diplomate certification in endodontics despite meeting written requirements, alleging that the oral examinations were arbitrarily short, irrelevant, and lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard. In this diversity action, the court applied Michigan law and ruled on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that private professional associations with monopoly power over certification must follow their bylaws and act rationally and fairly, but determined that oral exams in general, the lack of specific notice of deficiencies, and the use of grandfather clauses raised no triable issues; however, material facts remained disputed regarding the length and content of the plaintiff's specific exams, so summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Parets sued Eaton Corp. alleging national origin discrimination under Michigan law and breach of an employment contract after his South American position was eliminated, claiming he was not given the promised initial role or a U.S. reassignment. The federal court, sitting in diversity, applied Michigan choice-of-law rules and determined that claims for wrongful termination under Michigan statutes, the state constitution, or common law failed to state a claim under either Michigan or Ohio law. The court therefore granted dismissal of the termination-related claims but denied dismissal of the remaining breach-of-contract allegations concerning the original position and reassignment promises, as well as the claim that national-origin discrimination prevented other employment. Factual disputes about the employer entity and contract terms were left for further proceedings.
In Marshall v. American Motors Corp., the Secretary of Labor sued the company alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act through discharges, demotions, failures to promote, and other adverse actions against employees. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on issues including the adequacy of conciliation efforts, compliance with state deferral requirements, and the application of statutes of limitations. It held that the Secretary's two-year series of meetings and communications met the ADEA's conciliation mandate under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), struck the defendant's defense based on failure to defer to the state agency, and applied the limitations period to bar some claims while noting that demotion and promotion claims require further factual development due to possible continuing violations. The reasoning emphasized substantial compliance with procedural prerequisites and the plain language of the limitations statute without requiring an adjudicative-style negotiation process.
This case involved the National Labor Relations Board petitioning the court for interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Mayco Plastics, Inc., alleging that the company committed unfair labor practices to prevent unionization by the United Automobile Workers. The parties stipulated that Mayco engaged in activities such as questioning employees about union support, issuing threats, discharging employees, and granting benefits to influence the election, which the union lost. The court granted the NLRB's request for injunctive relief, including an order requiring Mayco to bargain in good faith with the union pending final Board proceedings. The core reasoning was that such relief was just and proper to preserve the pre-unfair-labor-practice status quo and effectuate national labor policy, despite defenses like delay and voluntary compliance, given the likelihood of eventual success on the merits and the need to counteract the effects of the practices.
