This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in a Chapter 13 proceeding where the Coles sought a declaration that a debt owed by the Woods from the sale of a house was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) due to actual fraud in the Seller’s Disclosure Statement regarding foundation issues. The bankruptcy court, after a two-day trial, found that the Coles failed to prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, crediting the Woods’ testimony that they were unaware of ongoing basement problems at the time of sale and determining there was no duty to disclose a prior related lawsuit. The district court affirmed, reviewing factual findings for clear error and evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and concluded that the bankruptcy court’s decision was not clearly erroneous and that any waiver or plain error issues with excluded evidence did not affect the outcome.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in a dispute between McTevia, the liquidating trustee in a Chapter 11 case, and USDR over whether a contract was formed for the purchase of proofs of claim against another debtor. The bankruptcy court denied USDR's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on contract formation and subject matter jurisdiction grounds, and instead granted summary judgment sua sponte to McTevia. The district court reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court erred by granting summary judgment against USDR without providing notice or an opportunity to present evidence. The district court also concluded that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction because the claim related to collection of assets traceable to the bankruptcy estate at confirmation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved a Michigan-based company, Lifestyle Lift Holding Co., suing a Florida plastic surgeon for statements he posted on the RealSelf.com website criticizing the plaintiff's "Lifestyle Lift" cosmetic procedure as a marketing gimmick performed by inexperienced surgeons. The claims included false advertising under the Lanham Act, defamation, and tortious interference with business relations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The core reasoning was that the defendant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Michigan, as his online postings on a national forum were not purposefully aimed at the state, and any injury would more likely be felt in Florida where the parties compete directly.
This case involves a patent dispute under the Hatch-Waxman Act in which Novo Nordisk sued Caraco for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358, claiming a method of treating non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus by administering repaglinide in combination with metformin to patients poorly controlled on metformin alone. Caraco defended by asserting that claim 4 of the patent was invalid as anticipated or obvious and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Following a bench trial, the court found the patent not anticipated by the prior art but invalid for obviousness, as the combination was prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill and secondary considerations such as unexpected results and commercial success did not overcome that showing. The court further concluded the patent was unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, based on material misrepresentations and omissions during prosecution, including declarations about clinical studies and prior art references.
This case involves a reverse racial discrimination claim under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which white police officers allege that Flint Mayor Donald Williamson selected officers for a new Citizens’ Service Bureau based on race. After the parties agreed to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and stayed the federal actions, defendant Williamson moved to disqualify arbitrator Thomas Waun. The court granted the motion, finding that Waun breached the arbitration agreement’s disclosure requirements by filing and publicly commenting on a separate lawsuit naming Williamson as a defendant in alleged discriminatory sales practices, without disclosing the representation. The court held that this created an appearance of partiality under the agreement and that a limited pre-award exception to the FAA permitted disqualification to avoid proceeding under a cloud of bias.
This habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 concerns Erwin Harris, who was convicted in 1999 of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of felony firearm possession arising from a gas station robbery. After exhausting state remedies, Harris challenged his felony firearm convictions on due process grounds, arguing that the Michigan Supreme Court improperly revised its interpretation of the felony firearm statute for aiding and abetting and applied the new rule retroactively. The district court granted habeas relief on the due process claim, finding the state court's actions contrary to clearly established federal law under Bouie v. City of Columbia and related precedents. As a result, the court ordered the felony firearm convictions vacated while staying the order pending any appeal. The ruling was based on AEDPA standards requiring deference to state court decisions unless they unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent.
