Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Chambers purchased a condominium in Novi, Michigan for $608,294.00, with a mortgage loan of $583,294.00, and a second mortgage of $166,635.00. The mortgages were assigned to HSBC. Chambers defaulted on the first mortgage, in 2008. The second mortgage was discharged in 2009. HSBC began non-judicial foreclosure proceedings by publishing a notice. In January, 2013, the Oakland County Deputy Sheriff sold Chambers’ condo to HSBC for $744,734.33. In September 2013, Chambers sued, demanding that the sale be voided because HSBC did not comply with Michigan law governing foreclosure by advertisement in failing to mail her written notices containing information specified in the statute including notification of her right to request loan modification; that all defendants “acting in concert … willfully, knowingly and purposefully failed to comply with the mandatory notice provisions” in Michigan law, and committed fraud in doing so; and that multiple conveyances of the mortgage were flawed, rendering HSBC legally incapable of foreclosing on the property. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Chambers had the opportunity during the redemption period following the foreclosure sale to request that a court convert the foreclosure by advertisement into a judicial foreclosure. She failed to act during the requisite time period and to request the exclusive remedy the court could grant. View "Chambers v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A." on Justia Law

Utica’s subsidiary, Republic, hired Sheppard’s law firm to pursue a subrogation action. Settlement proceeds totaling $145,000.00 were entrusted to the law firm; Sheppard was the managing partner. Republic was entitled to $130,740.03; that award was not distributed. Republic retained the Lewis, law firm to recover the money. The parties reached a settlement agreement; $60,000.00, was due in November 2013 and $70,740.03, was to be paid in December 2013. Payments were to be made to the Utica Atlanta regional office, which had originally worked with Sheppard and handles claims relating to member companies, including Republic. Sheppard’s portion, $30,000.00, was not received. In February 2014, Sheppard filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. UTICA is listed as a creditor,with the address of its New York home office. The Bankruptcy Court mailed notice to all creditors of the May 30, 2014 date by which creditors had to file a complaint or challenge the dischargeability of certain debts. No notice was sent to Lewis or Republic. On May 21, 2014 Lewis sued Sheppard in Tennessee State Court, unaware of the pending bankruptcy. Lewis received notice of the bankruptcy on May 28, and, on May 29, filed a timely motion to extend the deadline. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed denial of the motion, finding sufficient “cause” to justify extension under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004 and 4007(c). View "In re: Sheppard" on Justia Law

Avio claimed that Alfoccino violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), by hiring B2B to send unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Avio and a class of similarly situated persons. The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and found that Avio could not prove Alfoccino was vicariously liable for B2B’s transmission of the faxes. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Avio demonstrated standing. Though the TCPA does not expressly state who has a cause of action to sue under its provisions, its descriptions of prohibited conduct repeatedly refer to the “recipient” of the unsolicited fax, and in enacting the TCPA, Congress noted that such fax advertising “is problematic” because it “shifts some of the costs of advertising from the sender to the recipient” and “occupies the recipient’s facsimile machine so that it is unavailable for legitimate business messages while processing and printing the junk fax.” FCC regulations define “sender” with respect to the TCPA’s prohibition of unsolicited fax advertisements as being “the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the unsolicited advertisement,” indicating that primary, not vicarious liability attaches to Alfoccino. View "Imhoff Inv., LLC v. Alfoccino, Inc." on Justia Law

Wal-Mart is the country’s largest private employer, operating approximately 3,400 stores and employing more than one million people. In 2001, named plaintiffs filed a putative class action (Dukes) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, on behalf of all former and current female Wal-Mart employees. In 2011 the Supreme Court reversed certification of the nationwide class of current Wal-Mart employees under Rule 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate questions of law or fact common to the class. The district court then held that all class members who possessed right-to-sue letters from the EEOC could file suit on or before October 28, 2011. Six unnamed Dukes class members filed suit, alleging individual and putative class claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of current and former female employees in Wal-Mart Region 43. . The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The timely filing of a class-action complaint commences suit and tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action; the suit is not barred by the earlier litigation. View "Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint on behalf of two estates, claiming that financial institutions fraudulently transferred real estate in Shelby County, Tennessee, and failed to follow proper procedures for selling properties encumbered by outstanding liens. The district court dismissed on the ground that a non-attorney cannot appear in court on behalf of an artificial entity such as an estate, even though plaintiffs claimed that they were the sole beneficiaries of their respective estates. Each signed the notice of appeal as the “Authorized Representative” of the estates. Federal law allows parties to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” 28 U.S.C. 1654. The Sixth Circuit denied a motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the sole beneficiary of an estate without creditors may represent the estate pro se. The purpose of protecting third parties is not implicated when the only person affected by a nonattorney’s representation is the nonattorney herself. The tradition that “a corporation can only appear by attorney,” has not been extended to estates. View "Bass v. Leatherwood" on Justia Law

Defendants own and operate Auto Pro repair shops in Warren and Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff was employed as a mechanic at the Warren shop in 2011-2013. Syed manages that shop. The parties disagree about the beginning date of Plaintiff’s employment and his compensation. Plaintiff claimed that he worked 65-68 hours per week and was never paid overtime. He admitted to receiving “a little extra” money on occasion. Defendants claim that Plaintiff never worked more than 30 hours per week. They put forward paystubs and timesheets, indicating that he was paid $300 per week, (30 hours at $10 per hour). Syed stated that he security footage to determine employees’ arrival and departure times, from which he created timesheets. Defendants also submitted an affidavit from a manager, Blue. Blue stated that he did not permit Plaintiff to work after the shop closd to the public. Blue stated that “Plaintiff … never worked over 30 hours per week. The district court granted Defendants summary judgment in a suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201. The Sixth Circuit reversed; a plaintiff’s testimony alone may be sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff put forward testimony that contradicted that of Defendants, describing his typical work schedule with some specificity. View "Moran v. Al Basit, LLC" on Justia Law

GE manufactures Omniscan, an FDA-approved gadolinium-based contrast agent that has been associated in some patients with development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), a rare and deadly condition that leads to the hardening (fibrosis) of the kidneys. Omniscan was administered to Wahl for two MRIs she received in Nashville in 2006. About one year later, she displayed the first symptoms of NSF. She was officially diagnosed with NSF in 2010. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all pre-trial litigation of Omniscan-related cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In 2011, Wahl filed a complaint in that court. With the agreement of Wahl and GE, the MDL judge transferred the case, in 2013, to the Middle District of Tennessee, the “proper venue.” GE then moved for summary judgment, arguing that all Omniscan doses produced from 2004 to 2006 were marked with expiration dates two years after manufacture, so the Omniscan administered to Wahl must have expired no later than 2008; the Tennessee Products Liability Act’s statute of repose requires suits to be instituted within one year of the expiration date appearing on a product’s packaging. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, favoring GE, applying Tennessee choice-of-law rules. View "Wahl v. Gen. Elec. Co." on Justia Law

Henricks, an Ohio prisoner, had symptoms of acute appendicitis. The following day, upon the recommendation of Dr. Gonzalez, the prison medical director, Henricks was sent to an emergency room. Officer Maynard, who had accompanied Henricks, initially refused to remove Henricks’s restraints, causing a 45-minute delay. The surgery caused nerve damage to Henricks’s leg. Gonzalez refused to prescribe a medication (Neurontin) for the pain caused by that nerve damage, although other doctors indicated that Neurontin was necessary. Henricks filed a pro se complaint (42 U.S.C. 1983) regarding his medical care, naming Maynard and Gonzalez, who invoked qualified immunity. A magistrate concluded that Henricks had stated a colorable claim, but did not address qualified immunity. The defendants did not file an answer, but litigated discovery requests in the ensuing years. The district court subsequently granted Henricks’s motion to strike affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act , finding that defendants had waived them by not asserting them in an answer and that permitting them to assert the defenses at so late would unduly prejudice Henricks. The Sixth Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the exhaustion requirement ruling and upheld the holding that defendants waived their qualified immunity defense. View "Henricks v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Slep-Tone Entertainment sued Karaoke Kandy and Polidori under federal and state law for unlawfully selling hard drives bearing Slep-Tone’s registered trademarks without authorization. After trial, the jury answered a single interrogatory finding that the defendants had not infringed Slep-Tone’s trademarks. The district court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor. The Sixth Circuit stayed a separate appeal and remanded to the district court because Slep-Tone’s timely post-judgment motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 was pending before the district court. In a separate appeal, the Sixth Circuit remanded for further proceedings regarding defendants’ a motion for attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) based on the judgment in their favor. The motion was not untimely; the FRCP 52 motion remained pending. The court must determine whether it is necessary to reassess if this case qualifies as “extraordinary.” View "Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc." on Justia Law

Colosi lost a wrongful termination suit against her former employer, JLL. As the prevailing party, JLL filed a $6,369.55 bill of costs that the court clerk approved without modification, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Colosi objected to most of the charges and moved to reduce the bill to $253.50. The district court denied the motion, finding each cost reasonable, necessary to the litigation, and properly taxable under statute, 28 U.S.C. 1920. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Most of the costs Colosi challenged related to witness depositions. Necessity is determined as of the time of taking, and the fact that a deposition is not actually used at trial is not controlling. View "Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Am., Inc." on Justia Law