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

Watkins, an African-American, worked for the school district, overseeing security systems. Fultz supervised Watkins and, relying on Watkins’s advice, Fultz awarded Vision a $182,000 annual contract for service of security cameras. Vision’s president, Newsome, testified that Watkins called her and talked about a “finder’s fee.. Newsome went to Cleveland for a customer visit. She e-mailed Watkins and he replied: “Absolutely$.” Newsome believed that Watkins expected her to pay him at their meeting. Newsome notified Fultz. At the meeting, Watkins requested “an envelope.” After Fultz contacted police, the FBI recorded meetings at which Newsome gave Watkins $5,000 and $2,000. A white jury convicted on two counts of attempted extortion “under color of official right” (Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951), and one count of bribery in a federally funded program, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B). The court determined a total offense level of 22, applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, another two-level enhancement for bribes exceeding $5,000, and a four-level enhancement for high level of authority, plus an upward variance of 21 months under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), and sentenced Watkins to six years’ incarceration. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, the jury’s racial composition, and the reasonableness of the sentence.View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are wholesalers of beer and wine; each acted as the exclusive distributor of Miller and/or Coors brands within a defined territory under written franchise agreements. In 2007, Miller and Coors entered a Joint Venture agreement, contemplating creation of MillerCoors, restructured their respective businesses and assets, and assigned distribution agreements to the Joint Venture. MillerCoors notified the plaintiffs that it intended to terminate their distribution rights as a successor manufacturer under Ohio Rev. Code 1333.85(D). The district court found that MillerCoors is not a “successor manufacturer” under Ohio law because it is controlled by Miller and Coors, and that the Act, therefore, prohibits MillerCoors from terminating the distributorships. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Miller and Coors exercise control over MillerCoors through their equal voting power, veto power, the appointment of directors, all of whom are present officers or employees of the joint venture partners, and who owe their fiduciary duty only to Miller or Coors, their influence over the executive team, and their funding of MillerCoors. Even under the manufacturers’ proposed definition of “control,” the evidence shows that Miller and Coors together retain the power to “direct, superintend, restrict, govern, [and] oversee” MillerCoors. View "Beverage Distrib., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Lewis, Ross and Jennings, were limited guarantors of loans owed by River City, which filed for bankruptcy. Defendant acquired the original lender’s position and reported to credit reporting agencies that the plaintiffs were obligated in the full amount of the underlying loans rather than in limited amounts. In a suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C.1681–1681x, defendant counterclaimed on the guaranty agreements. The district court found defendant liable to each plaintiff for FCRA violations and the plaintiffs in breach of their guaranty agreements. The court awarded Lewis $30,000 in actual damages and $120,000 in punitive damages and each remaining plaintiff $25,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The court jointly awarded plaintiffs $20,024.55 in costs and $218,674.00 in attorney’s fees. On the breach of guaranty claims, the court found Lewises liable for $256,797.29, Jennings liable for $255,367.29, and Ross liable for $306,726.14. Defendant objected to Lewis’s garnishment, arguing that defendant was the net judgment creditor because the proper method of calculation required the court to: add the amounts defendant owed plaintiffs (including attorney’s fees and costs); add the amount paintiffs collectively owed defendant; then set off the former sum from the latter. The district court rejected the argument. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Lewis v. United Joint Venture" on Justia Law

Branham began teaching in 1983 and was a tenured law professor. She sometimes suffered from seizures. She had a 12-month teaching contract for 2006. For the spring semester she was assigned to teach constitutional law and torts. Branham indicated that she did not want to teach the classes, citing health reasons and her greater experience with criminal law. She nonetheless taught the courses. In summer Branham sold her house, moved to Illinois, and was granted a leave of absence. Assigned to teach constitutional law after returning from leave, she refused to do so. The dean terminated her employment in December. Her contract required that dismissal be voted upon by faculty. That process was not initially followed. Branham sought damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The district court dismissed all but the contract claim, granted a motion to limit the remedy on the contract-breach claim to equitable relief, held that the school had breached the contract, and ordered compliance. Faculty and the board of directors concurred in the dismissal. The district court entered judgment against Branham. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Branham v. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch." on Justia Law

Ronske’s widow sued Heil after a dump truck body it manufactured caused Ronske’s death. Heil held a commercial general liability policy. Evanston insured the first $1 million loss in excess of $500,000 self-insured retention. Heil was required to defend, investigate, and accept any reasonable settlement offer within the SIR; Evanston could choose to assume charge of defense and settlement. Heil retained attorney Pelini. After more than two years, Evanston wanted to assume defense and appointed Sutter, with Pelini to remain involved. Pelini’s fees would count toward exhaustion of the SIR, and Evanston would pay Pelini’s fees in excess of the SIR. The parties settled for $5,711,000. Evanston paid $1 million, leaving Heil responsible for $4,711,000 and $63,533.79 in fees and costs in excess of its SIR. Evanston declined to pay fees and costs. A jury found that Evanston breached the contract and refused in bad faith to pay amounts owed under the policy, but did not fail to settle the wrongful death action in bad faith, awarded Heil compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest for breach of contract, $15,883.44 in statutory damages for bad faith refusal to pay, and $2 million punitive damages. The Sixth Circuit vacated the $2 million punitive damages award, but affirmed the finding of liability under state law. View "Heil Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute arose from a policy designed to protect financial institutions from losses caused by dishonest employees. Trying to recover nearly one million dollars stolen by an employee from client brokerage accounts, three financial institutions sued the insurance company that issued the policy. The district court held that the policy covered the losses and granted summary judgment to the financial institutions. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the court's liability judgment and all but one of its damages calculations, holding (1) the stolen money was covered property; (2) the employee's theft caused a direct loss to the bank; (3) the employee committed his dishonest acts with the manifest intent to cause the loss; and (4) the district court's decision to subtract another insurance company's $50,000 pay-out to the banks based on another employee-dishonesty policy from the damages award was error. Remanded. View "First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins." on Justia Law

This insurance coverage dispute arose from a policy designed to protect financial institutions from losses caused by dishonest employees. Trying to recover nearly one million dollars stolen by an employee from client brokerage accounts, three financial institutions sued the insurance company that issued the policy. The district court held that the policy covered the losses and granted summary judgment to the financial institutions. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the court's liability judgment and all but one of its damages calculations, holding (1) the stolen money was covered property; (2) the employee's theft caused a direct loss to the bank; (3) the employee committed his dishonest acts with the manifest intent to cause the loss; and (4) the district court's decision to subtract another insurance company's $50,000 pay-out to the banks based on another employee-dishonesty policy from the damages award was error. Remanded. View "First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to recover on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated employees and retirees of the City of Cincinnati the current value of the 870,021 shares of Anthem stock that the City received from Anthem’s demutualization. Plaintiffs asserted eight claims for breach of contract and four tort claims against Anthem and three breach of contract claims and four tort claims against the City. The district court certified the class: 2,536 people named as insureds, or former members of a group of insured persons, covered under a health care group policy from June 18 through November 2, 2001. The class included “Class A” members, who had an insurance policy with Anthem prior to its merger with Community in 1995 and “Class B” members who received a health insurance group policy after the merger. The court later dismissed. The Sixth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), affirmed. Plaintiffs cannot recover any demutualization compensation; the City was the policyholder before the merger and maintained its policyholder rights post-merger through a grandfather clause, including any rights to demutualization proceeds. The 2001 demutualization process did not disrupt the City’s membership interests or confer any equity rights to Plaintiffs. View "Mell v. Anthem, Inc." on Justia Law

DiPonio Construction entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Union, which it subsequently terminated according to the terms of the agreement. DiPonio refused to bargain for a new agreement and sought a declaratory judgment. The district court held that even if it possibly had concurrent jurisdiction with the National Labor Relations Board to decide this issue, it would be inappropriate to exercise it, and imposed sanctions (attorney fees) against DiPonio under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The ultimate issue is whether the CBA was entered into pursuant to section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(f), or section 9(a) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 159(a). If the CBA was a section 8 contract, DiPonio had no duty to negotiate for a new CBA; however, if it is a section 9(a) contract it did. DiPonio’s claims are clearly “primarily representational” and fall within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB. View "DiPonio Const. Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers" on Justia Law

Access to the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario necessitated traversing city streets. The state contracted with the Company, which owns the Bridge, to construct new approaches from interstate roads. The contract specified separate jobs for the state and the Company. In 2010, the state obtained a state court order, finding the Company in breach of contract and requiring specific performance. The Company sought an order to open ramps constructed by the state, asserting that this was necessary to complete its work. The court denied the motion and held Company officials in contempt. In a 2012 settlement, the court ordered the Company to relinquish its responsibilities to the state and establish a $16 million fund to ensure completion. Plaintiffs, trucking companies that use the bridge, sought an injunction requiring the state to immediately open the ramps. The district court dismissed claims under the dormant Commerce Clause, the motor carriers statute, 49 U.S.C. 14501(c), and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 49 U.S.C. 31114(a)(2). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. For purposes of the Commerce Clause and statutory claims, the state is acting in a proprietary capacity and, like the private company, is a market participant when it joins the bridge company in constructing ramps. View "Mason & Dixon Lines Inc. v. Steudle" on Justia Law