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

Around midnight, Woolridge walked through an Akron neighborhood where police were searching for a fugitive. Officer Collins approached him and asked for his name. Woolridge turned and ran, tossing several items. Officers caught Woolridge, who immediately said, “I got a warrant” and “I got a parole violation.” Collins moved Woolridge to a containment van while, Woolridge tried to speak with Collins, who brushed him off. Eventually, Collins asked Woolridge about the items he threw during the chase. Woolridge ultimately explained that his brother had been murdered and “I had a firearm.” Officers found the gun only after asking Woolridge to specify where he threw the gun. As Collins began reading the Miranda warnings, Woolridge said “I know my rights.” Collins proceeded to give them. Woolridge again explained that he had carried the gun due to his brother’s murder.Charged as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Woolridge moved to suppress the statements he made before receiving the Miranda warnings. The district court suppressed the unwarned statements and permitted the admission of the post-Miranda statements. Woolridge pleaded guilty. The court varied upward by 13 months, imposing a 46-month sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Woolridge knew he had a choice and decided to speak anyway. The court explained its reasons for the sentence: Woolridge’s numerous offenses, his pattern of illegally possessing firearms, and many prison rule infractions. View "United States v. Woolridge" on Justia Law

Acuity operates a website that connects people looking to buy or sell homes with a local real estate agent. Acuity’s services are free to home buyers and sellers but realtors pay a fee for referrals. The real-estate broker that employed Lewis, a real estate agent, signed up to receive Acuity’s referrals. The broker required its agents (including Lewis) to pay Acuity’s fee out of their commissions from home sales. Lewis sued, alleging that Acuity makes false claims to home buyers and sellers on its website and that this false advertising violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B).The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. The Lanham Act provides a cause of action only for businesses that suffer commercial injuries (such as lost product sales) from the challenged false advertising. The Act does not provide a cause of action for customers who suffer consumer injuries (such as the cost of a defective product) from false advertising. Lewis alleges that type of consumer harm as his injury from Acuity’s allegedly false advertising: He seeks to recover the referral fee (that is, the price) he paid for Acuity’s services. View "Lewis v. Acuity Real Estate Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Two gangsters convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, challenged their convictions and sentences, raising an unprecedented legal theory—that district courts must apply the “categorical approach” to determine whether a state law crime qualifies as a predicate for “racketeering activity” under section 1961(1)(A). They argued that because Michigan’s robbery statute is categorically broader than generic robbery, the jury’s special verdict that found robbery as a predicate racketeering activity did not establish generic robbery.The Sixth Circuit rejected their argument and affirmed. Under RICO, “racketeering activity means any act or threat involving … robbery …, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” This encompasses more conduct than defined by Michigan’s statute, not less. The language refers unequivocally to the defendant’s conduct, not the state law or the elements of the state statute. Section 1961(1)(A) does not require a conviction or even require evidence sufficient for a conviction; it requires conduct that is chargeable under state law. View "United States v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

In 1987, a Michigan jury convicted Burton of first-degree murder and a firearm charge. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In 2019, Burton was released from prison and his conviction was vacated on the prosecutor’s motion after key witnesses recanted and details of witness manipulation and intimidation were revealed. Detective Sanders’s investigative tactics allegedly included threats and physical violence against witnesses, including minors. In 2020,Burton filed claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 against Sanders and Detroit for Brady violations, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence. The district court dismissed Burton’s claims as barred by Detroit’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy which occurred after Burton’s claims arose. Burton’s claims against Sanders remain pending. Burton’s sons then filed suit against Sanders and the city, alleging that the wrongful conviction and incarceration of their father throughout their childhood and into adulthood violated their constitutional right to family integrity. The district court dismissed, finding no cognizable due process right for “interference with family integrity” when a party is indirectly harmed by a constitutional tort against a family member. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; the plaintiffs have not alleged that the defendants acted with a culpable state of mind, directed toward them or their family unit. View "Chambers v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Two brothers were indicted in 2006 and were convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and felon in possession of a firearm. Additionally, Alejandro was convicted of possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes. William's sentence was 234 months—the high end of his Guidelines range. Based on prior state convictions for armed robbery and attempted drug trafficking, Alejandro, classified as a career offender, with a Guidelines range of 360 months to life plus a mandatory 60-month consecutive term, was sentenced to 420 months.The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act alleviated sentencing disparities between cocaine offenses and crack cocaine offenses; the 2018 First Step Act made its provisions retroactive. Both brothers sought resentencing. The court calculated an amended Guidelines range of 120-150 months for William and of 262-327 months for Alejandro but denied relief. The Sixth Circuit vacated. On remand, Alejandro argued that, if he were sentenced today, he would no longer be designated a career offender and would have a Guidelines range of 140-175 months. William argued that if an amendment eliminating “recency” points applied to him, his Guidelines range would be 110-137 months. The district court again denied relief.In 2022, the Supreme Court held, in “Concepcion,” that courts can consider all relevant information, subject only to constraints by Congress or the Constitution when discharging “their responsibility to sentence the whole person before them.” The Seventh Circuit again vacated and remanded for reassignment and consideration in light of Concepcion. View "United States v. Domenech" on Justia Law

Al-Adily is a citizen of Iraq and a lawful U.S. permanent resident. After returning his rental car to Thrifty 163 days past its due date, Al-Adily pleaded guilty to failing to return rental property worth between $1,000 and $20,000, under Michigan law. The state court ordered him to pay $10,660.56 in restitution, matching Thrify's itemized restitution request, including a daily loss-damage-waiver charge for 170 days, repair costs, an airport concession fee, and state and municipal taxes.In removal proceedings, DHS alleged that Al-Adily’s conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), allowing for deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an offense that "involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” The IJ noted oddities in Thrifty’s itemization but felt bound by the restitution amount. With the assistance of new counsel seven years later, Al-Adily successfully moved to reopen his removal proceedings. A new IJ concluded that Thrifty’s loss amount was necessarily equal to the amount of court-ordered restitution and denied Al-Adily’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed.The Sixth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court has warned that restitution orders must be considered with caution, especially where the amount was determined under a lower evidentiary standard. Thrifty’s itemization is internally inconsistent. Several enumerated charges do not stem from “the specific counts covered by the conviction” or are not losses at all. View "Habib Al-Adily v. Garland" on Justia Law

Maryville College leased a building to Ruby Tuesday, which used it for corporate retreats. In financial trouble years later, Ruby Tuesday decided to sell its interest in the lease. BNA, a real estate developer, and Ruby Tuesday signed an agreement. Ruby Tuesday had previously secured a loan from Goldman Sachs that prevented Ruby Tuesday from selling its interest in the lease without Goldman’s consent. The agreement with BNA stated that Ruby Tuesday “must obtain approval from [Goldman] for the transaction.” Goldman refused to approve. Goldman later acquired the lease, after Ruby Tuesday’s bankruptcy.BNA sued Goldman under Tennessee law for intentional interference with business relations (IIBR). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. To establish a viable IIBR claim, BNA had to adequately plead an existing business relationship with Ruby Tuesday, Goldman’s knowledge of that relationship, Goldman’s intent to cause a breach or termination of the relationship, Goldman’s improper motive or improper means, and damages from the tortious interference. BNA’s pleading did not satisfy the tort’s fourth prong: improper motive or means. The court also noted the lack of an existing business relationship between BNA and Ruby Tuesday. View "BNA Associates LLC v. Goldman Sachs Specialty Lending Group, L.P." on Justia Law

The False Claims Act imposes civil liability for “knowingly present[ing], or caus[ing] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim [to the government] for payment or approval,” 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A). Individuals with knowledge of false claims may bring private qui tam lawsuits, on behalf of the government. The Act covers claims resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(g), which prohibits medical providers from making referrals “in return for” “remuneration.”Oaklawn Hospital is in Marshall, Michigan, which had two ophthalmologists. Oaklawn extended one of those doctors (Martin) a tentative offer to work at the hospital after hearing that the other doctor (Hathaway) planned to move his surgeries elsewhere. Hathaway told the hospital’s CEO that he wanted to continue working with Oaklawn and that Oaklawn hiring Martin would be the “death knell” of his practice. Oaklawn’s Board ultimately did not hire Martin.Martin filed a qui tam action, alleging an illegal fraudulent scheme under the Anti-Kickback Statute and that claims for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement resulting from the kickbacks violated the False Claims Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, which essentially argued that Oaklawn’s rejection of Martin’s employment in return for Hathaway’s commitment to continue sending surgery referrals violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Martins have not plausibly alleged causation; the alleged scheme did not change anything. When Oaklawn decided not to establish an internal ophthalmology line, it simply left things where they were. View "Martin v. Hathaway" on Justia Law

A man walked into Walgreens wearing clothes with white stains, placed a pack of gum on the counter, asked for cigarettes, then pulled out an apparent handgun. The man fled with the money and the cigarettes, leaving the gum. Police found Jacobs’s fingerprint on the gum and got an arrest warrant. Jacobs learned of the warrant and voluntarily went to the police station. Jacobs met with Detective Agee, who read him his Miranda rights. Showing Jacobs pictures from the Walgreens robbery and other robberies, Agee noted that the stains on the robber’s clothes resembled stains on Jacobs’s jacket. Jacobs denied involvement in the robberies. Agee highlighted the strength of the fingerprint evidence and said that he would get a warrant to search Jacobs’s dad’s house, where Jacobs was living, and Jacobs’s car. Agee said that Jacobs would likely face a severe sentence but things might be different if Jacobs changed his story. Jacobs then said: “The weapons—them is gone.” Agee gave Jacobs a phone to make calls and offered food and drink. After a break, Jacobs said he “f—ed up bad” because he was “broke” and needed to pay child support. He made statements about the gun and helped police retrieve the clothes from his girlfriend’s house. The interview lasted less than two hours.The district court granted Jacobs’s suppression motion, concluding that Agee used impermissibly coercive tactics. On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. Jacobs’s statements were voluntary. View "United States v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

Ward twice received medical treatment at Stonecrest after signing agreements, stating that Ward was responsible for charges not covered by insurance and that Stonecrest may “utilize the services of a third party" as an extended business office (EBO) for billing and account servicing, and that while the account is being serviced by the EBO it is not considered delinquent, past due or in default. Stonecrest would “determine the account to be delinquent, past due, and in default” after its return from the EBO and the account could be referred to a collection agency. After Ward did not pay bills from Stonecrest, Ward’s accounts were referred to a third party, NPAS, which mailed Ward statements and left him messages. NPAS identified itself as “a company that is managing your account." Ward contacted a law firm, which erroneously sent a cease-and-desist letter to the wrong company.Ward sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging NPAS had not disclosed its identity as a debt collector, 15 U.S.C. 1692d(6); used a name other than its “true name” (NPAS instead of NPAS, Inc.); and called him after he attempted to send a cease-and-desist letter. The court held that NPAS did not qualify as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. The Third Circuit found that Ward did not have Article III standing but remanded. On remand, Ward amended his complaint and submitted documents to show he had suffered concrete harm. The Third Circuit affirmed that those changes were sufficient to demonstrate Ward’s standing but that NPAS is not a debt collector. View "sWard v. NPAS, Inc." on Justia Law