6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Mar. 17-21, 2008 (2 Pub. Ky decisions; 3 NPO)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0112p.06 2008/03/17	USA v. Goodman     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0113p.06 2008/03/17	Heavrin v. Schilling     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Donald Heavrin appeals the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and imposition of sanctions. We AFFIRM.
08a0114p.06 2008/03/18	Carter v. Burns     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0115p.06 2008/03/19	Noe v. PolyOne Corp     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This is a retiree health benefits case, in which the court is asked to determine whether the parties to various labor agreements intended for retiree health benefits to vest such that any termination of those benefits constitutes a violation of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). The district court granted summary judgment for defendant-employer PolyOne Corp. after concluding that the labor agreements in question were unambiguous and established no intent to vest retiree health benefits. Having conducted a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we arrive at a different conclusion and VACATE the district court’s judgment.
08b0006p.06 2008/03/19	In re: Ralph Swegan v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Youngstown
08a0116p.06 2008/03/20	Arendale v. Memphis Cty     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Michael Arendale is a white police officer employed by the Memphis Police Department. He appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant City of Memphis (“The City”) in this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq. For the reasons that follow, the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the City is AFFIRMED.
08a0117p.06 2008/03/20	USA v. Urrieta     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0118p.06 2008/03/20	Ahmed v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0119p.06 2008/03/20	Graham v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0120p.06 2008/03/21	Adkins v. Wolever     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0121p.06 2008/03/21	Dunlap v. TVA     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. David Dunlap brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The district court found that Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that the TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black job applicants. The TVA now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in each of these analyses. We find that although the district court was correct in finding disparate treatment, the proof was insufficient for a finding of disparate impact. We therefore AFFIRM on the disparate treatment claim, REVERSE on the disparate impact claim, and AFFIRM the court’s award of damages and fees.
08a0122p.06 2008/03/21	King v. Ambs     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of a police officer in a § 1983 action. Officer Kevin Ambs was questioning a third party, Nicholas Klein, when plaintiff Sean King told Klein not to speak to the officer. After King had twice told Klein not to talk to the officer, Officer Ambs threatened to arrest King if he said “one more word.” King told Klein a third time not to speak to the officer, at which point Officer Ambs arrested King. Relying on Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), King argues that the arrest violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Ambs argues that the arrest did not violate the Constitution and that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted Officer Ambs’ motion for summary judgment and held that King’s interference with Officer Amb’s investigation provided probable cause for the arrest. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS - NOTE: The "Filed" date for an unpublished opinion is not always the date on which it is posted.    Please check the opinion for the correct filed date.

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0149n.06 2008/03/17	USA v. Dunn     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0150n.06 2008/03/17	Hyzoti v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0151n.06 2008/03/17	Poteet v. Polk Cnty     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0152n.06 2008/03/17	Grange Mutual Cslty v. Mack     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort PER CURIUM: Defendant Greg Mack appeals a default judgment and subsequent default award of damages entered in favor of a group of insurance companies (the “Grange plaintiffs”). Mack bilked the companies by setting up medical clinics to treat auto accident victims and then using those clinics to diagnose phony injuries and overcharge the companies for the needless medical services performed. The Grange plaintiffs discovered the scheme and sued for fraud and RICO violations in December 2002. In November 2004, District Judge Joseph M. Hood warned Mack that if he continued obstructing discovery, the case would be tried on damages alone. Mack continued his obstruction, and the judge issued a default judgment as to liability in October 2005. Mack then continued obstructing the Grange plaintiffs’ damages investigations, so the district court issued a default judgment as to damages in December 2006. Mack appeals, arguing that the judge abused his discretion in issuing the default judgment. We affirm without hesitation, and hold that Judge Hood acted well within the discretion given to him by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C).
08a0153n.06 2008/03/18	Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin   Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0154n.06 2008/03/18	USA v. Brooks     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton
08a0155n.06 2008/03/18	Prechtel v. Kellogg's     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Deborah Prechtel, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Kellogg’s, doing business as Kellogg’s Snacks, on Prechtel’s state-law claims of sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and unequal pay. The district court held that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the claims raised in her complaint. We agree, and we therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
08a0156n.06 2008/03/19	USA v. McGovney     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington PER CURIAM. The defendant, Paul Thomas McGovney, was convicted on the basis of his guilty pleas to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and one count of receiving and disposing of a stolen firearm. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 15 years under the provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or the Act), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and now appeals the district court’s sentencing order, contending: (1) that the government’s failure to provide written notice of its intent to request a sentence under the Act violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as well as the ACCA itself; (2) that the sentencing judge's determination that McGovney’s prior sentences qualified as "violent felonies" within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial; and (3) that one of his burglary convictions did not qualify as a predicate offense under the Act. We find no basis on which to overturn the sentence and affirm.
08a0157n.06 2008/03/20	Eubanks v. Grand Rapids     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids