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

Kopko ran SFS in Michigan, providing financial transaction processing and electronic funds transfers to companies engaged in e-commerce, processing those transactions through its Fifth Third account, Fifth Third discovered that FBD was processing illegal gambling funds through that account and notified SFS that it was closing SFS’s account immediately. Losing this account crippled SFS’s ability to do business. SFS went bankrupt. Kopko telephoned FBD and spoke to Bastable, FBD’s vice-president for e-commerce. According to Kopko, Bastable said FBD did not have an account in SFS’s name. Months later SFS received a grand jury subpoena related to a federal investigation of the gambling transactions done in SFS’s name. When Kopko called Bastable again to discuss the subpoena, Bastable admitted that FBD had an account in SFS’s name and that the board of directors was aware of this account. In 2012, SFS sued FBD, Bastable, and FBD’s individual directors in federal court for negligence and fraud against. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that: answering the phone calls did not establish personal jurisdiction over individual defendants; FBD owed no duty of care to SFS because SFS was not a customer; and SFS failed to adequately plead a claim of fraud. View "SFS Check, LLC v. First Bank of De." on Justia Law

P&C filed suit on behalf of Penn, LLC against Prosper Corporation, Prosper’s owners, and their counsel, the Arnold Firm, alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the management of Penn and Prosper’s joint venture, BIGresearch. There had been court and arbitration proceedings since 2004, but Penn never before named the Arnold Firm as a defendant. The Arnold Firm served P&C with a letter purporting to satisfy the obligations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, threatening to seek sanctions if the matter was not dismissed, and claiming that the action was frivolous and had been filed for the “improper and abusive purpose” of disrupting the Arnold Firm’s attorney-client relationship with Prosper and its owners. The district court ultimately dismissed the Arnold Firm from the action, but denied a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against P&C. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that the Arnold Firm’s failure to comply with Rule 11’s safe-harbor provision made sanctions unavailable. The Arnold Firm’s warning letter expressly reserved the firm’s right to assert additional grounds for sanctions in its actual motion. View "Penn, LLC v. Prosper Bus. Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

Hoey, who owns a farmers’ market that offers hay rides, pony rides, and pumpkin picking, hired Armbruster to run the hay wagon for eight weekends. Armbruster is now a paraplegic because an accident with the wagon crushed her spine. She sued for negligence in Michigan state court. Armbruster and Hoey also sought a declaratory judgment, again in state court, that Armbruster was covered by Hoey’s General Commercial Liability insurance policy. The insurer, Western, sought a federal declaratory judgment that Armbruster was not covered by the insurance policy. The cases were consolidated in federal court. Counsel, provided by Western to Hoey, filed a workers’ compensation claim on the theory that Armbruster was an “employee” eligible for workers’ compensation. The state tort claim has been stayed until the workers’ compensation claim is resolved. The district court accepted jurisdiction and construed the policy to exclude Armbruster’s injury from coverage. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that it would be helpful for the parties to know whether Western was liable for Hoey’s legal fees, that Western was not playing procedural games, and that the federal forum could resolve the action without interfering in Armbruster’s tort suit or taking on difficult questions of state law. View "W. World Ins. Co. v. Armbruster" on Justia Law

Smith was an employee CGC, which offered some employees, including Smith, enhanced compensation if they would remain with CGC through its merger with AEGON. Under the Voluntary Employee Retention and Retirement Program (VERRP) Smith would retire in 2000. Smith elected to receive $1,066.54 under the qualified plan and $1,122.97 under the non-qualified plan, through the “AEGON USA Pension Plan: Election for Distribution and Explanation of Benefits.” An attachment informed Smith that “you will be entitled to receive additional benefits from the [CGC] Retirement Plan.” The two plans subsequently merged. Smith retired and the Plan paid him a lump sum plus $2,189.51 per month. In 2007, AEGON amended the Plan to add a “Restriction on Venue. A participant or Beneficiary shall only bring an action in connection with the Plan in Federal District Court in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.” In 2011, the Plan told Smith that it had overpaid him by $1,122.97 per month for 11 years and eliminated Smith’s entire monthly payment to obtain recoupment. Smith exhausted administrative remedies then filed suit against CGC in state court, asserting breach of contract, wage and hour statutory violations, estoppel, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. CGC removed the action to federal court, which dismissed, finding that that the VERRP was regulated by ERISA, that Smith was suing to recover benefits under this ERISA plan, and that only the Pension Committee, not CGC, was a proper defendant. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Smith filed suit against the AEGON Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The district court dismissed based on the venue selection clause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the venue selection clause as applying to all actions brought by a participant or beneficiary, not just claims for benefits. View "Roger Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan" on Justia Law

After losing millions of dollars because of delays and coordination failures in building a hospital, W.J. O’Neil Company sued its construction manager in state court. In subsequent arbitration, the architect and a design subcontractor (defendants) were added to the arbitration on indemnity claims. In the arbitration, O’Neil did not formally assert claims against those defendants, but O’Neil’s claims against its construction manager arose from the defendants’ defective and inadequate design of the hospital. O’Neil won the arbitration against its construction manager, but the construction manager did not establish its indemnity claims, so the defendants were not held liable. No party sought judicial confirmation or review of the arbitration award. O’Neil then sued the defendants in federal court. The district court dismissed, finding the claims barred by Michigan’s doctrine of res judicata. The Sixth Circuit reversed. An arbitration award cannot bar a claim that the arbitrator lacked authority to decide, and an arbitrator lacks authority to decide a claim that the parties did not agree to arbitrate. O’Neil did not agree to arbitrate the claims at issue. View "W.J. O'Neil Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott, Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Kiser is trained as a general dentist and as an endodontist specializing in root canal procedures. In 2009, the Ohio State Dental Board issued a warning to Kiser for practicing “outside the scope” of his declared specialty, stating, “if you wish to continue to declare yourself as a specialist in endodontics, you must advertise accordingly, and limit your practice per the ADA’s definition. If you would prefer to practice in areas outside the scope of endodontics, you may do so by no longer holding yourself out as a specialist in endodontics. You can be a general dentist, and then advertise and perform specialty services you are qualified to perform, so long as you also state you are a general dentist.” The Board took no further action and declined to answer Kiser’s 2012 inquiry about signage including the terms “endodontist” and “general dentist.” Kiser challenged the regulations as chilling his exercise of First Amendment commercial speech rights. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, applying the Supreme Court decision, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014) and finding that Kiser alleged facts demonstrating that he faces a credible threat that the regulations will be enforced against him in the future, so that he has standing to assert his pre-enforcement challenge. View "Kiser v. Reitz" on Justia Law

The 1977 Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 801(c), authorizes the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to promulgate mandatory health or safety standards, conduct regular inspections of mines, and issue citations and orders for violations of the Act or regulations. If an operator has a pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards and has been given required notice and an opportunity to comply, the Act authorizes issuance of an order requiring the operator to vacate the mine until the violation has been abated. The MSHA promulgated the first pattern of violations rule in 1990. The final rule issued in 2013, as 30 C.F.R. Part 104. Mining interests challenged the rule. The Sixth Circuit dismissed, concluding that the rule is not within the definition of a mandatory health or safety standard over which the Act grants appeals courts jurisdiction.View "Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor" on Justia Law

The employer implemented a force reduction in its Dayton, Ohio, office in 2008. Managers informed McCarthy that her position would be terminated the following month and provided McCarthy with two options. She could retire and receive a lump-sum termination payment. If she selected this option, she was allegedly told that she would not receive certain retirement benefits. She chose the other option, entering AT&T’s Employment Opportunity Pool to continue to receive healthcare benefits and a reduced wage until she reached age 65 in May 2009, when she retired with full benefits. In August 2010 McCarthy filed suit. During the litigation, McCarthy submitted several requests for admission (RFAs), but the employer refused to admit the veracity of the disputed facts. More than a year later, the employer turned over an email establishing that one of the disputed facts was true. McCarthy moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2). The district court granted the request, awarding $15,313.11, a fraction of what she sought. The Sixth Circuit remanded for recalculation of the amount.View "McCarthy v. Ameritech Publ'g, Inc." on Justia Law

Crugher, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) employee working at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF), sued Prelesnik, the warden of the ICF, claiming that Crugher was retaliated against, subjected to harassment and intimidation, and ultimately terminated after he took time off under the self-care provision of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). Crugher sought reinstatement. The district court dismissed on the grounds that the claim is barred by sovereign immunity or, alternatively, was untimely under the two-year limitations period in the FMLA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that an action by a state employee seeking prospective injunctive relief (reinstatement) against a state official under the FMLA’s self-care provision is subject to the limitations period contained in the FMLA. In addition, Crugher failed to state a willful violation of the FMLA; allowing Crugher to amend his complaint to allege willfulness, to take advantage of an extended three-year limitations period, would be futile. View "Crugher v. Prelesnik" on Justia Law

Wataniya, a Qatari corporation, operates restaurant franchises in the Middle East and North Africa. It has never operated any franchises in the U.S., nor does it have any offices, representatives, or employees in Michigan. Other defendants are natural persons, all citizens of Qatar. Beydoun,a U.S. citizen, was approached in Michigan by a Wataniya representative about becoming Wataniya’s CEO to “bring Western culture and restaurant franchises to the Middle East.” Beydoun accepted the position and moved to Qatar in 2007; his family followed in 2008. After moving to Qatar, Beydoun made several business trips to Michigan on Wataniya’s behalf. Wataniya purchased restaurant equipment from Michigan companies. After the relationship soured, the company accused Beydoun of mismanagement and of stealing significant sums of money. Beydoun responded that the company had not paid him his salary nor reimbursed him for living expenses. Wataniya revoked his exit visa, rendering Beydoun unable to leave Qatar. Beydoun filed suit in the Qatari courts seeking back pay and benefits. Wataniya counter-sued for $13.7 million and lodged a criminal complaint. Wataniya’s lawsuit and the criminal complaint were dismissed and Beydoun was awarded $170,000 by the Qatari courts. Beydoun was not legally permitted to return to Michigan until more than a year had passed. Beydoun sued in Michigan, alleging false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Beydoun failed to establish that the claims proximately resulted from Wataniya’s contacts with Michigan View "Beydoun v. Wataniya Rest. Holding, QSC" on Justia Law