6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Mar. 24-28, 2008
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0123p.06 2008/03/25 |
Bridgeport Music Inc v. WB Music Corp Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Bridgeport Music, Inc. (“Bridgeport”) appeals from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendant-Appellee Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc. (“UPIP”) as a prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. § 505. This court had vacated an earlier award of fees and costs to UPIP and remanded to the district court for further consideration. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music, 376 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004). On remand, the district court awarded the same amount of fees and costs to UPIP. Bridgeport argues that the district court abused its discretion. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. |
| 08a0124p.06 2008/03/26 |
Smith v. Williams-Ash Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati COOK, Circuit Judge. David and Melody Smith filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Judy Williams-Ash—a social worker employed by the Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services (“Children’s Services”)—claiming violation of their due process right to a hearing before the temporary removal of their children from their home. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Williams-Ash, holding that the Smiths were not entitled to a hearing because they consented to the removal of their children pursuant to a voluntary “safety plan.” We agree and affirm. |
| 08a0125p.06 2008/03/26 |
USA v. West Western District of Kentucky at Paducah BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. William David West challenges the validity of two search warrants issued by two state court judges. He argues that the affidavits in support of both search warrants did not support a finding of probable cause. He also argues that the Leon good-faith exception does not apply to rescue the faulty warrants, and that all evidence obtained from these searches should have been excluded. The district court denied West’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrants. We find that neither search warrant was supported by affidavits establishing probable cause and the Leon good-faith exception does not apply. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying West’s motion to suppress, VACATE the ensuing judgment of conviction, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
| 08a0126p.06 2008/03/26 |
Gray v. Moore Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0127p.06 2008/03/26 |
Grace v. Uscar, et al Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, Rosalyn Grace, appeals the district court’s order of summary judgment resulting in the dismissal of her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and federal and state gender discrimination claims against defendants USCAR and Bartech Technical Services, LLC (Bartech). First, she argues that Bartech and USCAR are joint employers and thus both liable for violations of her rights under the FMLA. In support of this argument, she contends that the district court misinterpreted existing case law regarding successor-in-interest liability under the FMLA and that she was eligible for unpaid medical leave. Second, she contends that the district court erred by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her Title VII gender discrimination claim. Specifically, Grace argues that Bartech had sufficient notice of USCAR’s violations to be held liable as a joint employer. And finally, the plaintiff argues that her related state-law claims should have been dismissed without prejudice, instead of with prejudice. We hold that Bartech and USCAR are joint employers for FMLA purposes and that Grace was eligible for unpaid leave. Grace has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants violated her rights under the FMLA; consequently, the district court’s grant of summary judgment is reversed as to the plaintiff’s FMLA claims. We agree, however, with the district court that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of her gender discrimination claims under Title VII. Finally, the plaintiff is mistaken in stating that her state-law gender discrimination claim was dismissed with prejudice; it was not. |
| 08a0128p.06 2008/03/26 |
USA v. Wittingen Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
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 |
|---|---|
| 08a0161n.06 | Katt v. Lafler Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor |
| 08a0162n.06 | USA v. Washington Western District of Tennessee at Memphis |
| 08a0163n.06 | Natl Child Support v. Hayes Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0164n.06 | Bishop v. Lucent Tech Inc Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
| 08a0165n.06 | Huffaker v. Metro Life Ins Co Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville |
| 08a0166n.06 | USA v. Rose Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City |
| 08a0167n.06 | USA v. Tyler Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City |
| 08a0168n.06 | Thiel v. Life Ins Co N Amer Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor |
| 08a0169n.06 | Cope v. USA Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington |
| 08a0170n.06 | Brothers, et al. v. Cty of Summit et al. Northern District of Ohio at Akron |
| 08b0004n.06 | In re: Paul Newman v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Nashville |
| 08a0171n.06 | Tate v. Bock Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City |
| 08a0172n.06 | Pappas v. State Farm Fire Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
Comments