Sixth Circuit Cases

U.S. 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of May 5-9, 2008

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0172p.06 2008/05/06	Fieger v. Cox     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Geoffrey N. Fieger, John L. Barlow, Bill Miller, Nancy Fisher, the law firm of Fieger, Fieger & Johnson, and the J.L. Barlow advertising firm brought a vindictive prosecution action against Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Rand, and others in the Michigan Attorney General’s office. The district court found that the Younger abstention doctrine counseled against exercising jurisdiction where essentially the same issues were being raised in a state court proceeding, and dismissed each of the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0173p.06 2008/05/06	Zoarab v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0174p.06 2008/05/07	B & H Med v. ABP Admin Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this antitrust case, we consider the legality of an agreement between non-party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) and the Defendants-Appellees, Wright & Filippis, Inc. and its subsidiary ABP Administration, Inc. (collectively “W&F”). This agreement began in 1992 and established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply durable medical equipment and prosthetics and orthotics to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”) employees and retirees and later to certain employees and retirees of Ford Motor Company, as well as participants in the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (“MPSERS”). Following a competitive bidding rocess, BCBSM selected W&F to administer the network created by the contract, which has since been renewed multiple times. After its application to join this network was rejected in 2000, Plaintiff-Appellant B & H Medical, L.L.C. (“B&H”), filed this lawsuit in September 2002, attacking the network under the antitrust laws as an illegal exclusive-dealing arrangement that allegedly barred B&H from competing in the “sale, lease or rental of medical durable equipment and medical supplies to large insurance provider networks,” which B&H claimed was the relevant market. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 32-34 (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 6-13). In a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion, the district court granted W&F’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting B&H’s definition of the relevant market and finding that B&H’s antitrust claims failed for several reasons, among them that B&H failed to demonstrate antitrust standing and that the alleged exclusive-dealing agreement foreclosed no more than thirteen percent of a properly defined relevant market. The district court later granted in part W&F’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, imposing over $84,000 dollars in sanctions against Attorneys-Appellants Stephen M. Ryan, P.L.L.C., and Stephen M. Ryan (collectively “Ryan”) for “failing to dismiss this case when a lengthy discovery period failed to disclose any support for the antitrust claims asserted in the complaint.” B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 746, 748 (E.D. Mich. 2005). In addition to appealing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, B&H also appeals a discovery order issued by the district court that limited B&H’s efforts to obtain broad categories of information from nonparty BCBSM, and Ryan appeals the sanctions award. W&F filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 38 seeking the imposition of appellate sanctions against B&H and Ryan for pursuing a frivolous appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court in all respects and we GRANT W&F’s motion for appellate sanctions.
08a0175a.06 2008/05/08	Royal Ins Co v. Orient Overseas     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) and its cargo insurer, Royal Insurance Co. of America (“Royal”) (collectively, “Appellants”), brought this action against Defendant-Appellee Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (“OOCL,” or “Appellee”), an ocean carrier, for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage. OOCL impleaded Third-Party Defendants-Appellees M/V Canmar Pride, the carrying vessel; CP Ships (UK) Ltd.; CPS No. 3 Ltd.; and CPS No. 5 Ltd. (collectively, “Third-Party Appellees”). On September 29, 2005, the district court granted partial summary judgment for OOCL and Third-Party Appellees, ruling that Appellants’ claims were subject to the $500-perpackage liability limitation prescribed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. § 30701 et seq. Both the district court and this court authorized an interlocutory appeal of that ruling, and Appellants now argue that the district court’s ruling should be reversed. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0229n.06	Paul House v. Ricky Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0229n.06	Paul House v. Ricky Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0230n.06	USA v. Swift     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0231n.06	USA v. Conner     Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown
08a0232n.06	Degussa Admixtures, v. Burnett     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0233n.06	USA v. Gleason     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0234n.06	Vuktilaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0235n.06	USA v. Finnell     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0236n.06	USA v. Manns     Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville
08a0237n.06	Leasure v. AA Advantage     Western District of Kentucky at Paducah
08a0238n.06	USA v. Hammon     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0239n.06	Hall v. Clarksville Cty     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0240n.06	Zantello v. Shelby Township     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0241n.06	Kalaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0242n.06	Stenaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0243n.06	Danner v. Bd. Of Prof. Res.     Middle District of Tennessee
08a0244n.06	Barry v. Noble Metal     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0245n.06	Ferron v. Zoomego Inc.     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0246n.06	Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Leff     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0247n.06	Thomas v. Avon Products     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0248n.06	Alternative Enter v. USA     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0249n.06	Gordon v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0250n.06	USA v. Young     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0251n.06	Early v. Toyota Motor Corp     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort
08a0253n.06	DeJesus v. Lafler     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

US 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 28 - May 2, 2008

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0167p.06 2008/04/29	Johnson v. Bell     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0168p.06 2008/04/29	Gibson v. Moskowitz     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Ozy Vaughn, a mentally disabled inmate, died from severe dehydration after being held for several days in a 90 to 100 degree observation room. A jury determined that Dr. David Moskowitz’s deliberate indifference and medical malpractice caused Vaughn’s death and awarded his estate $2 million in compensatory damages (later reduced to $1.5 million) and $3 million in punitive damages. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
08a0169p.06 2008/05/01	MI Div Monument v. MI Cemetery, et al     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case involves allegations of anticompetitive behavior in the market for burial monuments in the state of Michigan. Three independent monument builders and a nonprofit trade association of monument builders—the Michigan Division of the Monument Builders of North America—(collectively, the Builders) filed the present lawsuit against 20 cemetery operators and the Michigan Cemetery Association (collectively, the Cemeteries). The lawsuit alleges that the Cemeteries are engaged in (1) an illegal tying arrangement, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (2) an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition and monopolize trade, also in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (3) an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, and (4) violations of the Michigan Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act, M.C.L. § 328.225. The district court dismissed the Builders’ claims after concluding that the proposed geographic market as set forth in the complaint was too narrow as a matter of law. Subsequently, the district court denied motions for sanctions against the Builders that were filed by several of the cemetery operators. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the merits of the antitrust claims, but VACATE its denial of sanctions and REMAND the case for further proceedings on that issue.
08a0170p.06 2008/05/02	Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this diversity class action, brought pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (2006), Defendant Access Group, Inc. (“Access Group”) appeals the district court’s denial of Access Group’s motion for summary judgment and its grant of Plaintiff Jill B. Savedoff’s (“Savedoff”) motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for Savedoff’s breach of contract claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08a0171p.06 2008/05/02	USA v. Blair     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0224n.06	USA v. Beach     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville PER CURIAM. Ronald Beach pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly transporting and shipping child pornography in interstate commerce, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), and to one count of knowingly receiving child pornography that has traveled in interstate commerce, see id. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced Beach to 96 months’ imprisonment, varying downward from a guidelines range of 210–240 months. The government appealed. Because the district court did not exceed its discretion in granting this variance, see Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Grossman, 513 F.3d 592, 596 (6th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
08a0225n.06	Shane v. Bunzl Dist USA Inc     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. When Joe Shane first appealed his contract claim to this court, we affirmed the district court in all respects save one: We remanded Shane’s request to file a third amended complaint because the court gave no explanation for denying the motion. On remand, the district court provided an explanation for denying the motion, one that lies within the range of discretion given to the district courts over matters of this sort. We affirm.
08b0009n.06	In re: Michael Nowak v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Akron
08a0226n.06	Carpenter v. City of Franklin     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0227n.06	Paul v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0228n.06	Borbodoeva v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0228n.06	Borbodoeva v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 21-25, 2008 (No. Ky Decisions)

CA6 Home 

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0161p.06 2008/04/22	Great Lakes Explor v. Unidentified Wreck     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0162p.06 2008/04/22	Dunn v. Savage     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0163p.06 2008/04/23	Giesse v. Sec of the Dept of     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0164p.06 2008/04/24	USA v. Goosby     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0165p.06 2008/04/25	Keene v. Mitchell     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0166p.06 2008/04/26	Huang v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals

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. 

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0207n.06 2008/04/22	Scott v. Eastman Chem Co     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
08a0208n.06 2008/04/22	USA v. Slaughter     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0209n.06 2008/04/22	Feathers v. McFaul     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0210n.06 2008/04/22	USA v. Williams     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0211n.06 2008/04/23	USA v. Daniel     Eastern District of Tennessee at Winchester
08a0212n.06 2008/04/23	USA v. Keesee     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0213n.06 2008/04/23	Beechy v. Central MI Dist Hlth     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0214n.06 2008/04/23	Demo v. Red Roof Inns Inc     Western District of Michigan at Kalamazoo
08a0215n.06 2008/04/23	Jaber v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0216n.06 2008/04/23	Diana Carter v. First Energy Nuclear Operating     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0217n.06 2008/04/24	USA v. Nelson     Western District of Michigan at Marquette
08a0218n.06 2008/04/24	USA v. Scantland     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0219n.06 2008/04/24	Smith v. Bayer Corp Long Term     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0220n.06 2008/04/24	USA v. Robinson     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0221n.06 2008/04/24	Mills v. Williams     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0222n.06 2008/04/24	Abdul-Khaliq v. Newark     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 14-18, 2008 (1 Pub Ky Decision)

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0154p.06 2008/04/15	Jeffries v. Morgan     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Billy S. Jeffries appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus seeking to overturn his conviction for murder and attempted rape based on evidence discovered subsequent to trial that implicates another person, John Dillon, in the crime. The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in holding that: (1) upholding the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support a conviction; (2) affirming the Kentucky Court of Appeals’ decision that the Commonwealth’s failure to turn over the limited information it had about Dillon to the defense did not give rise to a Brady v. Maryland claim; and (3) denying as moot Jeffries’ motion to expand the record and compel the Commonwealth to produce the transcripts of the trial. We now find that the district court erred in denying Jeffries’ motion to expand the record. Therefore, we VACATE the district court’s denial of habeas corpus, REVERSE the denial of Jeffries’ motion to expand the record, and REMAND with instructions that the district court review the entire available record in assessing Jeffries’ petition.
08a0155p.06 2008/04/15	Munaco v. USA     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0156p.06 2008/04/15	USA v. Terry     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0157p.06 2008/04/16	B & G Mining v. OWCP     Benefits Review Board
08a0158p.06 2008/04/16	Ndrecaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08b0007p.06 2008/04/16	In re: Kenneth Davis v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cincinnati
08a0159p.06 2008/04/17	Barry v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0160p.06 2008/04/18	Greater Hts Academy v. Zelman     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claim filed by two Ohio community schools, Greater Heights Academy and W.C. Cupe Community School (“Appellants”), against three Ohio public officials, Dr. Susan Tave Zelman, Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Paulo A. DeMaria, Associate Superintendent for the Center for School Finance of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), and Todd L. Hanes, Director of ODE’s Office of Community Schools (collectively, “Appellees”). Appellants sought injunctive relief consisting of a prayer for the receipt of state educational funds pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 3314.08 and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the denial of funding. Concluding that community schools are political subdivisions and barred from asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims against state officials, the district court dismissed Appellants’ suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether Appellants are political subdivisions that therefore cannot invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against the state of Ohio.
08b0008p.06 2008/04/18	In re: J & M Salupo v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cleveland

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
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
08a0195n.06 2008/04/14	Djokovic v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0196n.06 2008/04/16	USA v. McKinney     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0197n.06 2008/04/16	USA v. Munguia     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0198n.06 2008/04/16	Koehler v. Pension Benefit     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08b0007n.06 2008/04/16	In re: Gruseck v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Covington
08a0199n.06 2008/04/16	Burnett v. Kelly     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0200n.06 2008/04/16	Gant v. Genco I, Inc     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0201n.06 2008/04/16	Cameron v. Grainger Cnty TN     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0202n.06 2008/04/17	Ukpabi v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0203n.06 2008/04/17	USA v. Bass     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0204n.06 2008/04/17	Harris v. City of St. Clairs     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0205n.06 2008/04/17	Ackers v. Celestica Corp     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08b0008n.06 2008/04/18	In re: Robert Moran v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cleveland

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 7-11, 2008 (2 Pub. Ky. Decisions)

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0143p.06 2008/04/07	USA v. Highgate     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0144p.06 2008/04/08	USA v. Luqman     Northern District of Ohio at Akron
08a0145p.06 2008/04/09	USA v. Dial     Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia
08a0146a.06 2008/04/09	Morrison v. Boyd Cnty Bd Ed     Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below. In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech. After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board.
08a0147p.06 2008/04/09	Benitez v. USA     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0148p.06 2008/04/09	Carlisle v. Curtis, Mallet     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants seek to overturn an order of the district court that denied their motion for a stay pending arbitration of the dispute that brought the parties into court. To establish jurisdiction, they rely on Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1), which permits interlocutory review of orders denying motions to stay under Section 3 of the Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, none of the defendants involved in this appeal was a signatory to the written arbitration agreement in question. Instead, they based their effort to compel arbitration on a theory of equitable estoppel, a claim that the district court considered and rejected. In the absence of an applicable written agreement to arbitrate, the plaintiffs contend that Section 3 is inapplicable in this action and, consequently, that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal on an interlocutory basis. We agree.
08a0149a.06 2008/04/11	Spisak v. Mitchell     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0150p.06 2008/04/11	Hamilton v. Starcom Mediavest     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Cari Ann Hamilton brought suit against Starcom Mediavest Group, Inc., and Leo Burnett USA, Inc., alleging that they violated ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (2005), by terminating her employment in retaliation for exercising her right to claim disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that (1) Hamilton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and alternatively, (2) she failed to make the required showing that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her — the reorganization and hiring of candidates with greater experience — was a pretext to retaliate against her. She now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We agree with the district court’s second, alternative, finding and hold that Hamilton has failed to establish that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her was mere pretext, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
08a0151p.06 2008/04/11	USA v. Hunt     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0152p.06 2008/04/11	USA v. Rose     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0153p.06 2008/04/11	Mahdi v. Bagley     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	Pub Date	Short Title/District
08a0186n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Garner     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0186n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Carr     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0187n.06	2008/04/09	Palmer v. Haviland     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0188n.06	2008/04/09	Lin v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0189n.06	2008/04/09	Medlen v. Meyers     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0190n.06	2008/04/09	Rogers v. TN Bd of Regents     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
08b0005n.06	2008/04/09	In re: James Krempa v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Marquette
08b0006n.06	2008/04/09	In re: Stardust Yach v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - London
08a0191n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Pugh     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0192n.06	2008/04/09	Conner v. St Farm Mutl Auto     Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Kathy Conner appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and the denial of her Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Conner brought suit against State Farm, alleging that State Farm violated Kentucky’s Civil Rights Act, KY. REV. STAT. § 344.040(1), by discriminating against Conner on the basis of age when State Farm did not accept Conner into its candidate pool for agent positions. State Farm appeals the district court’s grant of $8,860.00 in attorney’s fees to Conner for State Farm’s violation of discovery rules. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0193n.06	2008/04/10	USA v. Letner     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton
08a0194n.06	2008/04/11	Brady v. Potter     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Mar. 31 - Apr. 4, 2008

CA6 Home

    Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0129p.06 2008/03/31	Thompson v. North Amer Stainless     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort TARNOW, District Judge. Shortly after Appellant Eric Thompson’s fiancée filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against their common employer, the Appellee, Thompson was terminated. The parties to this appeal ask whether the anti-retaliation provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect a related or associated third party from retaliation under such circumstances. We hold that that they do, and REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer.
08a0130p.06 2008/03/31	Delmas Conley v. NLRB     National Labor Relations Board
08a0131p.06 2008/03/31	Doe v. Bredesen     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0132p.06 2008/03/31	USA v. Martin     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
08a0133p.06 2008/04/01	Cline v. BWXT Y-12, LLC     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Royal Cline challenges a decision rejecting his state-law, agediscrimination claims as a matter of law. One of Cline’s claims is barred by the statute of limitations, and another claim fails because the company offered a nondiscriminatory, non-pretextual reason for its decision. But a third claim, based on retaliation, deserves further consideration because a reasonable jury could infer that the company had knowledge of this lawsuit and took an adverse employment action because of it.
08a0134p.06 2008/04/01	Fulton v. Moore     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0135p.06 2008/04/01	Yeschick v. Mineta     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gary D. Yeschick brought suit against Defendant-Appellee Norman Y. Mineta, the former Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation,1 who oversees operations of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA” or “Agency”), alleging that the FAA failed to rehire him due to his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA” or “Act”).
08a0136p.06 2008/04/02	USA v. Gray     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0137p.06 2008/04/03	USA v. Page     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0138p.06 2008/04/03	USA v. Simpson     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0139p.06 2008/04/04	Davenport v. Causey     Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Officer Samuel E. Causey and the City of Crossville, Tennessee (“defendants”) appeal the decision of the district court denying them qualified immunity and therefore denying them summary judgment. Mr. Ben Davenport, the father of Austin and Kendra Davenport (“plaintiffs”), was shot by Officer Causey during an attempted arrest following a routine traffic stop. Plaintiffs sued,1 claiming that Officer Causey had used excessive force, and that the City of Crossville inadequately trained its officers on the constitutional use of force. Both defendants moved for summary judgment based on the qualified immunity of Officer Causey. The district court denied their motions, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact. Upon our review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that the force used was constitutionally reasonable and, therefore, that plaintiffs have failed to establish a constitutional violation. We accordingly reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.
08a0140p.06 2008/04/04	Jones v. Cincinnati     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0141p.06 2008/04/04	Bishop v. Lucent Tech Inc     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order dismissing retirees’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty against their former employer and its employment benefit plan. Plaintiff retirees allege they were misled into prematurely accepting early retirement. The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the district court failed to construe the complaint liberally in their favor and misapplied the governing statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
08a0142p.06 2008/04/04	USA v. Jeross     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

    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
08a0173n.06	Hodges v. Ford Motor Company     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Steve Hodges sued Ford Motor Company and human resources manager Jack Halverson for defamation under Kentucky common law. The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, concluding that they had a qualified privilege to make the statements at issue. Because Kentucky law permits a jury to infer malice from the mere falsity of a statement, and a finding of malice is sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege at the summary judgment stage, we reverse.
08a0174n.06	Belknap v. J.B. Hunt Transp     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0175n.06	Howard v. RRRB     Railroad Retirement Board
08a0176n.06	USA v. Weldon     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0177n.06	USA v. Brown     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0178n.06	Cook v. McPherson     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0179n.06	Nerghes v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0180n.06	Source Assoc Inc v. Valero Energy Corp     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Mar. 24-28, 2008

CA6 Home

    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

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

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of March 10-14, 2008

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0109p.06	R/T 182, LLC v. FAA     Federal Aviation Administration
08b0005p.06	In re: World Savings v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cincinnati
08a0110p.06	Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this Takings Clause and Due Process case, landowners who sought to rezone their farmland for a trailer park and other residential development challenge the district court’s order granting the defendant Township’s motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ Takings Clause claim was not ripe for review in the federal courts due to the rule of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires that a plaintiff first give the state court an opportunity to adjudicate the issue of just compensation before seeking a declaration from a federal court that the state has failed to provide just compensation. According to Williamson County, a plaintiff bringing a takings claim must first pursue – and be denied – available remedies in state court. The district court in the present case concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to do so precludes a federal court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over the takings claim. The district court also held that the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant’s zoning ordinance and appeals process violated various constitutional rights – including procedural due process, substantive due process and equal protection – was “ancillary” to the takings claim and thus similarly unripe for review. The plaintiffs argue in their appeal that these injuries are unrelated to the Takings Clause claim and must be reviewed as completed injuries. Conflicting case law exists as to whether such claims are, in fact, independent. However, even assuming that the claims are not ancillary to the Takings Clause issue, summary judgment is nevertheless appropriate for the defendant. Consequently, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
08a0111p.06	USA v. Gabrion     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

   NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0142n.06	Saxe v. Dlusky     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08b0002n.06	In re: Azbill v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Covington
08a0143n.06	Tkachik v. Comerica Inc.     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0144n.06	Rose v. Hartford Financial     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington
08b0003n.06	In re: Dilworth v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Toledo
08a0145n.06	USA v. O'Non     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

6th. Cir. Decisions for Week of March 3, 2008

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0098p.06	Trafalgar Corporation v. Miami Cnty     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Trafalgar Corporation sought a federal court determination of its constitutional takings and equal protection claims against the Miami County Board of Commissioners and Concord Township. The district court dismissed the case on a motion for summary judgment finding that Trafalgar’s claims were barred by principles of preclusion. For the following reasons we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
08a0099p.06	USA v. Mabry     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0100p.06	Huffman v. CIR     Commissioner of Internal Revenue
08a0101p.06	AmeriCredit Fin Serv v. Long     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This consumer bankruptcy, Chapter 13 case arises because the debtor bought a car under a typical financing arrangement in which the lender retained a lien or mortgage on the car as security for payment of the outstanding loan that enabled the debtor to buy the car. The debtor proposed to surrender the car to the finance company as part of the Chapter 13 plan. The value of the car was less than the outstanding debt. Due to a glitch or gap in a recent revision of the Bankruptcy Code intended to benefit creditors, the law is now silent on what happens to the remaining indebtedness in the surrender-of-the-car situation. The bankruptcy court below held that the congressional mistake in drafting the revision means that the remaining indebtedness is completely wiped out. We believe the gap should be filled and the Congressional mistake corrected. The law previously governing this situation should be restored until Congress can correct its mistake and fill in the gap.
08a0102p.06	USA v. Tatum     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson
08a0103p.06	J & R Marketing v. General Motors     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, purchasers of bonds registered by GMAC in September 2003, brought suit under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against GMAC and its control persons, including General Motors, which at the time wholly-owned GMAC. Plaintiffs alleged that GMAC had breached its disclosure obligations as well as made material misstatements in its registration statements and prospectuses for multiple offerings of bonds registered in 2003 and 2004. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion. It found that plaintiffs lacked statutory standing to bring claims regarding offerings other than the one in which they had purchased. The district court also found that the plaintiffs had no claim regarding a duty to disclose because Item 303, the regulatory authority relied on by plaintiffs, did not give rise to a duty to disclose the information the plaintiffs sought because the information was not “firm specific” to GMAC. Additionally, the district court found that there was no material omission because the affirmative statements made by GMAC were not rendered misleading by the absence of the information cited by plaintiffs. Lastly, the district court held that most of GMAC’s statements were not false, and the ones that were arguably false were not material to bond investors. We find that the named plaintiffs’ own claims are without merit because the offering materials did not have material omissions because (1) Item 303 only imposes a duty to make forward-looking projections regarding known information, and plaintiffs pleaded only that the information was “knowable”; and (2) GMAC’s affirmative statements were not rendered misleading by the absence of the information described by plaintiffs. We also find that the offering materials for the offering in which plaintiffs’ purchased did not include material misstatements, because the affirmative statements made by GMAC were in fact true. Since the named plaintiffs’ individual claims cannot succeed on the merits, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint.
08a0104p.06	Citizens for Tax v. Deters     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. As with the law in general,1 the First Amendment is a jealous mistress. It enables the people to exchange ideas (popular and unpopular alike), to assemble with the hope of changing minds, and to alter or preserve how we govern ourselves. But in return, it demands that sometimes seemingly reasonable measures enacted by our governments give way. The State of Ohio enacted a provision making it a felony to pay anyone for gathering signatures on election-related petitions on any basis other than the time worked. It did so for the sensible purpose of reducing fraudulent signatures. The provision, however, runs afoul of the First Amendment because it creates a significant burden on a core political speech right that is not narrowly tailored. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the State.
08a0105p.06	Floyd v. City of Detroit     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case arises from an incident in which Detroit police officers Emmett Quaine and Juan Reynoso, Jr. opened fire on Ronald Floyd in his own backyard, wounding him in the chest. Floyd, who was unarmed, claims that the officers fired on him without warning and without cause. He filed this lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City of Detroit and the two officers. According to Floyd, the officers violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force, and the City is liable for failing to properly train them. All three defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment.
08a0106p.06	Jackson v. Fed Express Corp     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge. Appellant Willie J. Jackson (“Jackson”) filed a complaint against FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation (collectively “FedEx”) alleging he was discriminated against based on his race in violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as amended (“Section 1981”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. 621 et. seq. The district court dismissed Jackson’s ADEA claim and Jackson does not appeal that decision. The district court denied FedEx’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Jackson’s claims under Section 1981 and Title VII. Following the close of Jackson’s evidence, the district court granted FedEx’s motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, to dismiss Jackson’s case. For the reasons set forth below, the district court’s order is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
08a0107p.06	USA v. Gibney     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
08a0108p.06	Day v. James Marine Inc     Benefits Review Board SUTTON, Circuit Judge. There is a little more to this dispute than the topic (attorney’s fees) and the amount at stake (less than $15,000) would suggest. Larry Day says that the Benefits Review Board erred in determining that a portion of the fees he incurred in seeking workers’ compensation did not shift to his employer, James Marine, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Because the Board correctly determined that the Act does not allow an employee to collect attorney’s fees incurred before the employer has rejected the employee’s claim, we affirm this aspect of the Board’s decision. But because the Act does allow—and indeed requires—fee shifting from the time the employer rejects the employee’s claim through the employee’s successful prosecution of that claim, we reverse the Board’s contrary ruling on this point.

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
      

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0128n.06	Moore v. State of Tenn.     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0129n.06	USA v. Mullikin     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington
08a0130n.06	Turner v. Comm Social Security     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0131n.06	King v. Gowdy     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0132n.06	Lawler v. Cty of Taylor     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0133n.06	Bergmoser v. Smart Document     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0134n.06	Koehler v. PepsiAmericas, Inc.     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0135n.06	USA v. Horton