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

As one of the largest developers in Cincinnati, Erpenbeck defrauded buyers and banks out of nearly $34 million. Erpenbeck pled guilty to bank-fraud in 2003, received a 300-month sentence, and was ordered to forfeit proceeds: $33,935,878.02, 18 U.S.C. 982(a). The FBI later learned that Erpenbeck had given a friend more than $250,000 in cash. The friend put the cash in a cooler and buried it on a golf course. Agents unearthed the cooler. The government sought forfeiture of the cash and posted online notice in 2009. Three months later, the trustee of Erpenbeck’s bankruptcy estate contacted an Assistant U.S. Attorney, told her the estate had an interest in the cash and asked about the government's plans. The attorney did not mention the forfeiture proceedings. Because no one asserted an interest, the district court entered an order vesting title to the cash in the government, 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(7). The trustee sought to stay the order in November 2010. The district court denied the motion because the trustee did not file a timely petition. The Sixth Circuit vacated. Even though the trustee’s interest in the cash was "far from a mystery," the government did not take even the "modest step" of sending a certified letter. View "United States v. Erpenbeck" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are the sole shareholder and Chairman of Miami Valley Bank and also own stock in a mortgage lender with which the bank had loan agreements. In 2007, the FDIC began investigating the loan agreements. State and federal regulators closed the bank and appointed the FDIC as a receiver. The FDIC purportedly halted its investigation when an accounting expert confirmed that the loans were legal. The mortgage company then petitioned the receiver for $10 million that the bank owed the mortgage lender. In retaliation for the $10 million request, FDIC investigator Stevens allegedly prompted the FDIC to resume the investigation of the bank. The plaintiffs then sued Stevens, alleging that the retaliatory investigation violated the First Amendment, a “Bivens” action. Stevens died after the lawsuit began. The plaintiffs argued that their Bivens action survived his death, regardless of whether their claim would survive under state law. The district court held that state law controls the survivability of Bivens actions, subject to one inapplicable exception. The court applied Ohio law, under which the death of Stevens extinguished the claims against him. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Haggard v. Steven" on Justia Law

Ohio individuals and businesses sued Duke Energy, alleging violation of the Robinson-Patman Act , 15 U.S.C. 13, Ohio's Pattern of Corrupt Activity Act, a civil RICO claim, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and common-law claims of fraud and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs alleged that Duke, through subsidiaries and an affiliated company, paid unlawful and substantial rebates to certain large customers, including General Motors, in exchange for the withdrawal by said customers of objections to a rate-stabilization plan that Duke was attempting to have approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio as part of a transition to market-based pricing under Ohio Rev. Code 4928.05, enacted in 1999. The district court dismissed, finding that it was deprived of federal question jurisdiction by the filed-rate doctrine, requiring that common carriers and their customers adhere to tariffs filed and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies, and that PUCO had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims, depriving the court of diversity jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the filed-rate doctrine applies only in challenges to the underlying reasonableness or setting of filed rates and that plaintiffs adequately stated claims. View "Williams v. Duke Energy Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Before the 2008 financial crisis, six AIG subsidiaries sold Sharia-compliant financing products. Sharia refers to Islamic law; an SCF product uses a portion of product reserves to fulfill the Islamic duty of charitable giving and does not invest premiums in industries dealing with pork, alcohol, interest, gambling, or pornography. The subsidiaries are consolidated in AIG financial statements and received part of the funds AIG received in 2008, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York lent AIG $85 billion in exchange for AIG shares. The Treasury Department also took an ownership stake in AIG by committing $40 billion pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 12 U.S.C. 5201–61. Treasury committed $ 30 billion to AIG in 2009, in exchange for more stock. Plaintiff challenged EESA, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause for the government to allow a portion of the capital given to AIG to support the marketing of SCF products. Plaintiff is a Michigan resident, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a Catholic, and a taxpayer. His status as a federal taxpayer is his sole basis for asserting standing. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Murray v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Ohio enacted legislation under which it no longer will apply the "best available technology" standard to small emitters as part of its state implementation plan (SIP) for National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain types of air pollutants (Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409). Act. The U.S. EPA did not approve a change to the SIP, but has taken no action to require the state to enforce the standard. Environmentalists sued under the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision. The district court entered an injunction expressly ordering the state to administer the federal rule. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal, concluding that intervening Supreme Court precedent and the text and structure of the Clean Air Act itself indicate that the citizen-suit provision does not authorize this lawsuit, but authorizes suit against the federal EPA.

Plaintiff, an air traffic controller 1974-1981, was fired by President Reagan and subject to a ban on rehiring until 1993, when he applied for rehiring. He had moved and did not update his contact information. He was not rehired and, in 2002, brought a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621–634against the Secretary, who oversees operations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Plaintiff failed to respond to both the district court's motions deadline and the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, plaintiff filed Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, claiming that his attorney did not receive electronic notices of case filings due to a change of his email address. The court denid the motion, citing an affirmative duty to monitor the docket and maintain a current e-mail address, as well as the prejudice the Secretary would suffer were the motion to be granted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, also rejecting the case on the merits.

In 2006, U.S. Marshals worked with officers in 24 states on a fugitive round-up that led to arrests of 10,733 people, including plaintiff, who was wrongfully arrested because of clerical mistakes. All charges were eventually dropped, but news reporters had filmed her arrest and aired the story, including plaintiff's name and a statement that she was wanted for identity theft, after the dismissal. One station also placed the video on its website, along with a written story. Plaintiff's attorney faxed a cease and desist letter to the station, which removed the story, although it remained accessible by keyword search for several days. Most of plaintiffs' claims against the federal and city governments, the U.S. Marshals Service, the broadcast company and employees, and various named and unnamed Marshals, were resolved. The district court rejected defamation and false light claim against the broadcast company, based on the fair report privilege requirement of proof of actual malice, and a Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), claim against the U.S. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the discretionary function exception. Investigating and apprehending plaintiff was discretionary and not within the safe harbor for intentional torts.

A 66-year -old arrived at petitioner's center with complex ailments, but oriented, able to feed herself and able to speak. During her 18 days at the center, she was sent to the hospital twice with serious medical complications. Upon investigation, the center was found to have failed to maintain substantial compliance with federal regulations for facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid (42 U.S.C. § 1395) in its treatment of the resident and appealed the resulting civil money penalty. An administrative law judge, the Departmental Appeals Board, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The ALJ acted properly in requiring submission of written testimony, properly weighed the evidence, and found violation of the federal hydration standard, laboratory services requirement, and mandate of a care plan, resulting in "immediate jeopardy."

Doctors filed suit, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3279 and the Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act, as qui tam relators on behalf of the United States/ The claimed that the business defrauded the government by submitting Medicare and Medicaid billings for defective radiology studies, and that the billings were also fraudulent because the business was an invalid corporation. The federal government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed. Sixth Circuit affirmed. The doctors failed to identify any specific fraudulent claim submitted to the government, as is required to plead an FCA violation with the particularity mandated by the FRCP. A relator cannot merely allege that a defendant violated a standard (in this case, with respect to radiology studies), but must allege that compliance with the standard was required to obtain payment. The doctors had no personal knowledge that claims for nondiagnostic tests were presented to the government, nor do they allege facts that strongly support an inference that such billings were submitted.

Following their termination from appointed county positions, plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they were terminated without due process of law. The positions were "unclassified" and not protected under the Tennessee Civil Service Merit System. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the county and its officials. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs had no legitimate property right to their positions and nothing for the Due Process Clause to protect. Plaintiffs, in their positions five to 21 years, never previously challenged the unclassified nature of their jobs