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

In 2002, Deere became the exclusive North American wholesale supplier of Hitachi products. In 2014, Deere notified Rudd, a long-time authorized dealer of Hitachi equipment, of its intent to terminate its dealer agreements and initiated arbitration proceedings, as required by the agreement. Although Rudd agreed that arbitration was the proper forum, it sought injunctive relief to maintain the status quo during arbitration and moved to seal the case, stating that “the very fact of this lawsuit” could cause loss of customers, layoffs (or preemptive departure) of employees, and diminution of the value of Rudd’s financial investment. Two weeks later, the district court entered Rudd's proposed order, before Deere submitted a response. During an on-the-record telephonic status conference, the court asked the parties whether the case should remain under seal; Rudd’s counsel replied that it should, while Deere’s counsel was silent. The matter proceeded to an Agreed Order. The arbitration panel requested a copy of that Order, believing that it would obviate the need for an expedited hearing. Deere’s counsel forwarded the Order without consulting Rudd. Rudd moved for contempt . Deere moved to vacate the sealing order. The Sixth Circuit affirmed an order unsealing the case. Rudd cannot show any countervailing privacy interest sufficient to outweigh the strong presumption in favor of public access to federal court records View "Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co." on Justia Law

For more than 40 years, participants in the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System (TVARS) received cost-of-living adjustments on top of their investment returns, pension benefits, and supplemental benefits. In 2009, with the system’s financial health in jeopardy, the TVARS board amended the rules that govern the system to cap or eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for the years 2010–2013, increase the eligibility age for cost-of-living adjustments, and lower the interest rate on a savings fund. The participants sued. None of their claims survived summary judgment. According to the district court, the plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce the board’s compliance with the TVARS rules, and a Takings claim failed on the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part; cost-of-living adjustments are not vested, the agencies were also entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the claim that the board violated TVARS rules by reducing vested benefits. The court remanded remaining claims alleging violations of the TVARS rules because those claims are judicially reviewable in the context of this case. View "Duncan v. Muzyn" on Justia Law

In 2001, EQT sold or leased to Journey several oil- and natural-gas-producing properties in Kentucky. Both parties continued to conduct oil and natural-gas operations in the state, but Journey later concluded that EQT was operating on some of the lands that had been conveyed to Journey. Journey sought a declaration that it owned or controlled those properties and that EQT was liable for the oil and natural gas that EQT had removed from those properties. The district court concluded on summary judgment that the parties’ 2001 contract had unambiguously conveyed the disputed properties to Journey. A jury found that EQT’s trespasses on Journey’s lands were not in good faith. The court subsequently required EQT to pay $14,288,432 in damages and transfer certain oil and natural-gas wells to Journey. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred in construing the parties’ contract, in excluding portions of EQT’s proffered evidence, and in crafting the remedy for EQT’s trespasses. EQT carried out its drilling despite obvious indicators that its ownership of the underlying property was doubtful, establishing an ample basis to conclude that EQT’s trespasses were not in good faith. View "Journey Acquisition-II, L.P. v. EQT Prod.Co." on Justia Law

Multi-employer funds established by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractor National Association and the Sheet Metal Worker’s Union sought confirmation of arbitration awards granted against five employers. None of the employers had participated in the arbitration, which concerned contributions to the funds. The district court declined to confirm the award, concluding that there was an open question as to whether the employers were party to the CBA, and, therefore, bound to its arbitration procedures. After initially ruling that state law applied to the question of whether the employers were bound to arbitrate under the CBA, the court certified a question for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b): whether state or federal law will apply at trial to the question of whether the employers “are bound/signatory to” the CBA? The Sixth Circuit reversed. While state contract law may provide helpful guideposts to federal courts, it is well-established that in the field of labor relations, the technical rules of contract law do not determine the existence of a CBA. The law to be applied to the question of whether a party has assented to the terms of a CBA, including an arbitration provision, is ultimately federal. View "Sheet Metal Employers Indus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Construction Contractors (CC), was formed to perform employment functions for regional construction employers, who would transfer funds into CC’s accounts to cover gross payroll, taxes, benefits, and administrative costs. CC would disburse the funds to satisfy subscribers’ obligations. In 2002, CC outsourced its daily operations to AlphaCare. In 2012, AlphaCare informed CC that there were insufficient assets to meet obligations, although the subscribers had paid enough money to fulfill their respective obligations. An AlphaCare manager (Moon) had been falsifying financial statements. CC terminated its agreement with AlphaCare. An investigation revealed that the IRS had started levying CC accounts in 2011. CC owed more than $1.25 million, plus penalties, in unpaid taxes dating back to 2005. AlphaCare had also failed to remit $715,000 in Ohio unemployment taxes for the first quarter of 2012.CC’s CFO, VanDenBerghe, determined that Moon had committed wire fraud by transferring over $900,000 from CC’s account to AlphaCare’s account from 2009-2012. VanDenBerghe continued investigating; about $1 million was still missing. CC applied for a crime-coverage insurance policy, with coverage for employee theft, from Federal Insurance. After Federal executed the policy, CC determined that Moon had misappropriated the missing $1 million. Federal denied CC’s claim for that loss. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Federal, concluding that any loss caused by one employee is considered a “single loss” under the policy and that CC had “discovered” the loss before the execution of the policy. View "Constr. Contractors Employers Group, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Under Ohio Rev. Code 1333.85, suppliers manufacture or import alcoholic beverages and must sell their products to state-licensed distributors, who sell to retailers; supplier-distributor franchise agreements are protected from termination without just cause, except when a successor manufacturer acquires another manufacturer, the successor may terminate the franchise by repurchasing the distributor’s inventory and compensating for the diminished value of the distributor’s business that is directly related to the sale of the product terminated. NAB owned Labatt through nested holding companies. NAB's owners sold their interests to CCR. Months later, Ohio distributors of the Labatt brands received letters terminating their franchises, citing the section 1333.85(D) exception. In the distributors' suit, the court granted CCR summary judgment on a Takings Clause claim and a claim regarding the scope of section 1333.85(D), then determined the diminution of the values of the distributors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed rejection of the constitutional claims. At common law, businesses may enter into contracts that allow for termination and contracting parties have a right to breach a contract that is no longer advantageous, in an “efficient breach.” That common-law norm is abrogated by section 1333.85, with an exception. The state created and is free to take away that protection from termination. The court remanded the calculation of damages with instructions to deduct the distributors' projected profits for the time until the date when the franchise agreements are finally terminated View "Tri County Wholesale Distrib., Inc. v. Labatt USA Operating Co." on Justia Law

Harrogate, a healthcare provider, participates in Blue Cross networks. Harrogate’s patients sign an “Assignment of Benefits,” allowing Harrogate to bill Blue Cross directly for services. The Provider Agreement allows Blue Cross to perform post-payment audits and recoup overpayments from Harrogate. Blue Cross paid Harrogate's claims for antigen leukocyte cellular antibody (ALCAT) tests, which purport to identify certain food allergies. Blue Cross claims that these tests have “little or no scientific rationale.” Investigational treatments are not “covered, compensable services” under Blue Cross’s Manual, which is incorporated by reference into the Provider Agreement. That Agreement also specifies that Harrogate may not “back-bill” patients for un-reimbursed, investigational treatments unless, before rendering such services, “the Provider has entered into a procedure-specific written agreement with the Member, which has advised the Member of his/her payment responsibilities.” Blue Cross began recouping ALCAT payments. Harrogate filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court dismissed, holding that Harrogate did not meet the statutory definition of “beneficiary” and had not received a valid assignment for the purpose of conferring derivative standing to bring suit under ERISA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While Harrogate had derivative standing through an assignment of benefits, its claim regarding recoupments falls outside the scope of that assignment. View "Brown v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010, Bail Bonds and Hamza jointly and severally secured a $75,000 appearance bond on behalf of Mohammed-Ali, an Ethiopian national (Hamza’s cousin), charged with smuggling a controlled substance, (khat), into the U.S., 18 U.S.C. 545. One condition of the sureties’ obligation was that Mohammed-Ali “comply with all conditions of release imposed by this court,” which included that he wear a GPS ankle bracelet. But 15 months later—at Mohammed-Ali’s request and without objection from the government—the court entered an order allowing him to remove the ankle bracelet. Neither counsel nor the court provided the sureties with notice of the motion or of the order. Mohammed-Ali fled to Ethiopia. The government sought judgment against the sureties. The district court granted the government summary judgment, reasoning that Bonds had constructive notice of the motion because it could have accessed the docket for Mohammed-Ali’s case, using the court’s electronic-filing system. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The risk the sureties agreed to accept was that Mohammed-Ali might flee notwithstanding his conditions of release, which included the ankle bracelet. That risk included the possibility that Mohammed-Ali might saw off bracelet and then flee. What the sureties did not accept was that the court would remove the bracelet for him. The purported “notice” was inadequate. View "United States v. Mohammed-Ali" on Justia Law

Montgomery bought a Tassimo, a single-cup coffee brewer manufactured by Kraft Foods, expecting it to brew Starbucks coffee. After the purchase she struggled to find Starbucks T-Discs—single-cup coffee pods compatible with the brewer. The Starbucks T-Disc supply eventually disappeared as Kraft’s business relationship with Starbucks soured. Montgomery sued Kraft and Starbucks on behalf of a class for violations of various Michigan laws. After dismissing several claims and denying class certification on the rest, the district court entered judgment in Montgomery’s favor when she accepted defendants’ joint offer of judgment under FRCP 68. Montgomery appealed the dismissal of her breach of express and implied warranty claims, the denial of class certification on her consumer-protection claims, and the attorney’s fees awarded as part of the Rule 68 settlement (about 3% of what she had requested). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that Montgomery did not purchase the item directly from defendants, for purposes of express warranty, and did not allege that the coffee maker was unfit for its ordinary purpose. View "Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc." on Justia Law

Alco, a vending machine company, contracted with B2B, a “fax broadcaster,” in 2005, and dealt with B2B and Macaw, a Romanian business, that worked with B2B. Each sample advertisement provided by B2B stated that the message was “the exclusive property of Macaw . . . , which is solely responsible for its contents and destinations.” According to Alco, B2B was to identify recipients from a list of businesses that had consented to receive fax advertising from B2B. Alco never saw this list, but believed that each business would be located near Alco’s Ohio headquarters, and had an existing relationship with B2B, so that the advertising would be “100 percent legal.” B2B broadcast several thousand faxes, advertising Alco. According to Alco, B2B did not inform Alco about the number of faxes, the dates on which they were sent, or the specific businesses to which they were addressed. After each broadcast, Alco received complaints of unauthorized faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), which it referred to B2B. Siding filed a purported class action against Alco. The district court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for determination of whether B2B broadcast the faxes “on behalf of” Alco, considering the degree of control that Alco exercised, whether Alco approved the final content, and the contractual relationship. View "Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc." on Justia Law