PUBLISHED OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0176p.06 2008/05/1 |
Harden-Bey v. Rutter Western District of Michigan at Marquette |
| 08a0177p.06 2008/05/12 |
Jackson v. McKee Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor |
| 08a0178p.06 2008/05/13 |
S&M Brands Inc v. Cooper Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. S&M Brands, Inc. and International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. (“ITP”) sued the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee in his official capacity.1 They claim that the State of Tennessee has violated federal antitrust law and the U.S. Constitution in its implementation and application of the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) between various States and major tobacco manufacturers. The only claim before us in this appeal and cross-appeal is whether the Attorney General’s enforcement of an amended escrow provision has had an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights to due process.2 The district court concluded that, although ITP is not a tobacco product manufacturer, it had standing to seek a release of funds from escrow. On the merits of the Plaintiffs’ due-process claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General except as to ITP’s claim for a release of escrow funds associated with cigarette sales in 2003. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand to the district court with instruction to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity. |
| 08a0179p.06 2008/05/13 |
Ukpabi v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0180p.06 ]2008/05/13 |
Claudia Marlar v. BWXT Y-12 LLC Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Ms. Claudia Marlar filed this action against her former employer, BWXT Y-12, L.L.C. (“BWXT”), alleging that it had violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by defrauding the United States government, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(3), and by discharging her in retaliation for whistleblowing, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The district court held that Ms. Marlar’s claim of fraud was not pleaded with specificity, and therefore her cause of action was dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also held that Ms. Marlar failed to allege the elements necessary to establish a cause of action for retaliation, and therefore dismissed her complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Ms. Marlar claims that both determinations are in error. We find that the district court properly dismissed Ms. Marlar’s fraud complaint, as Ms. Marlar failed to identify a single false claim and did not establish the specifics of the alleged fraud. We find, however, that Ms. Marlar adequately pleaded a cause of action for retaliation. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s decision, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
| 08a0181p.06 2008/05/14 |
Lockett v. Suardini Western District of Michigan at Marquette |
| 08a0182p.06 2008/05/15 |
In re: Scrap Metal v. Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Columbia Iron and Metal Company (“Columbia”) appeals a jury verdict finding Columbia liable for antitrust violations and awarding the Plaintiffs-Appellees damages exceeding $20 million. The most critical question on appeal relates to the damages testimony of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ expert, Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger. Columbia asserts that Leitzinger’s damages calculations are unreliable, and that the district court therefore erred in admitting his testimony. Columbia also raises three additional arguments on appeal: (1) the damages award is not supported by sufficient evidence and represents an impermissible “fluid recovery”; (2) the district court improperly allowed the case to proceed as a class action; and (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury on the tolling of the statute of limitations. Finding no reversible error by the district court, we AFFIRM the verdict and damages award. |
| 08a0183p.06 2008/05/16 |
Zirnhelt v. MI Con Gas, et al Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In this pension-benefits case, Diane Zirnhelt argues that the district court erred in (1) upholding the company’s denial of benefits, (2) denying her motion to amend her complaint to add an equitable-estoppel claim, (3) dismissing her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and (4) awarding her just $10,500 based on the company’s failure to provide her with pension plan documents in a timely manner. For its part, the company argues (in its cross appeal) that the district court should not have imposed any monetary penalty. We affirm. |
| 08a0184p.06 2008/05/16 |
Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith, both African-American, were dock workers and truck drivers for defendant USF Holland, Inc. After making numerous complaints over the course of several years regarding their coworkers’ habit of referring to them as “boy,” “hey boy,” or “damn it boy,” and subjecting them to other forms of racial harassment, plaintiffs sued defendant for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Following a non-jury trial, the district court ruled for plaintiffs and awarded damages. We affirm. |
| 08a0185p.06 2008/05/16 |
Brittingham v. GMC Southern District of Ohio at Dayton MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, Julie and David Brittingham, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to remand the case to state court and its grant of summary judgment in favor of both defendants, Dr. Virginia Stull (“Dr. Stull”) and General Motors Corporation (“GM”). The plaintiffs’ claims arose from a pre-employment physical examination conducted by one of GM’s physicians, Dr. Stull. That examination produced two abnormal lung function tests, the results of which were never discussed with Ms. Brittingham. When she was later diagnosed with a lung disease, the plaintiffs sued GM, Dr. Stull, and several others for negligence, intentional misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment. The case was originally filed in state court, but was removed by the defendants to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of complete preemption. Because we find that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND with instructions to remand the matter to the state court from which it came. |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0254n.06 | USA v. Pickett Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0255n.06 | Sy v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0256n.06 | Lusher v. Mansfield Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0257n.06 | James Burks, IV v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0258n.06 | USA v. Webb Western District of Tennessee at Memphis |
| 08a0259n.06 | Michel v. City of Akron, et al Northern District of Ohio at Akron |
| 08a0260n.06 | B & V Distr Co Inc v. Dottore Co LLC Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0261n.06 | Humphrey v. US Atty Gen Office Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0262n.06 | Wilks v. The Pep Boys Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville |
| 08a0263n.06 | USA v. Price Western District of Tennessee at Jackson |
| 08a0264n.06 | Sanchez v. City of Franklin Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville |
| 08a0265n.06 | Seales v. Macomb Cnty, Eastern District of Michigan at Flint |
| 08a0266n.06 | USA v. Hunt Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
