CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: CRAIG STEVEN ROMANZI,
Debtor.
___________________________________________
KENNETH A. NATHAN, as Trustee of the Estate of
Craig S. Romanzi,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
FIEGER & FIEGER, P.C.,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. |
Nos. 20-2278/21-1004 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
2:18-cv-11375—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
Nos.; 2:16-bk-43857—Maria L. Oxholm; 2:16-ap-04672—Marci B. McIvor, Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 8, 2022
Before: BOGGS, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Attorney Craig Romanzi referred a lucrative personal-injury
case to his employer, the law firm of Fieger & Fieger, P.C. (the “Firm”); meanwhile, creditors
were winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in default judgments against him. The personalinjury case settled for $11.9 million—about $3.55 million of which was awarded as attorney’s
fees—after Romanzi had quit the Firm. Romanzi’s employment at Fieger & Fieger entitled him
to a third of the fees as the originating attorney, his intervening departure notwithstanding. But
before Romanzi could claim his due, his creditors forced him into involuntary Chapter 7
bankruptcy. The appointed trustee, Kenneth Nathan (the “Trustee”), commenced this adversary
proceeding against the Firm to recover Romanzi’s third of the settlement fees on behalf of the
bankruptcy estate.
The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Firm on the Trustee’s conversion
claim but allowed the claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit to proceed to trial before
the district court. Rather than face a jury, however, the parties agreed to submit to arbitration and
abide by a panel’s “brief reasoned decision.” Two of the three arbitrators found for the Trustee in
a single-paragraph decision that, while certainly brief, was not reasoned to the Firm’s
satisfaction. The district court agreed and remanded to the arbitrators for clarification rather than
vacating the award. On remand, the panel asked for submissions from both parties, which the
Trustee provided; the Firm refused to participate at all. The arbitrators’ subsequent supplemental
award, approved by the district court, awarded the Trustee the fees owed to Romanzi, plus
interest.
Fieger & Fieger now appeals, alleging that (1) remand was inappropriate and the district
court should instead have vacated the award, (2) the arbitrators’ decision on remand was barred
by the doctrine of functus officio, and (3) the supplemental award should likewise have been
vacated. Nathan, cross-appealing, seeks to revive the conversion claim dismissed by the
bankruptcy court.
Neither party’s critique of the lower courts is persuasive. As to Fieger & Fieger’s claims,
none of the grounds for vacating an arbitral decision apply, and remand was appropriate under
the clarification exception to functus officio. As to Nathan, he failed to present evidence for a
key element of his statutory-conversion claim. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district
court and bankruptcy court. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
WILLIAM LAPLANTE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN; MIKAEL ZIEGLER
and BRICE KERSCHEN, individually and in their official
capacities,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 21-1371 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:19-cv-00166—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: January 27, 2022
Decided and Filed: April 8, 2022
Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendants, Officers Mikael Ziegler (“Officer Ziegler” or
“Ziegler”) and Brice Kerschen (“Officer Kerschen” or “Kerschen”), appeal the district court’s
order denying their motion for summary judgment in Plaintiff William LaPlante’s (“Plaintiff” or
“LaPlante”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
his Fourth Amendment rights when Ziegler threw him to the ground in a takedown maneuver
and Kerschen failed to intervene to prevent that use of force. For the reasons that follow, we
AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Defendant Ziegler and
REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Defendant Kerschen and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ANDREW L. RICE; MARY NEDA ANN SHAUB; PARKER
FAMILY TRUST; WILCOX COMMUNITIES, LLC; WILCOX
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
VILLAGE OF JOHNSTOWN, OHIO,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-3268 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:19-cv-00504—Sarah Daggett Morrison, District Judge.
Argued: October 13, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 8, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. The Rice family devised a two-part plan to annex their eighty-acre farm into the Village of Johnstown and have it zoned for a residential development. But it
was not to be. After working for eighteen months with various Johnstown officials, the
Johnstown Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z Commission) rejected the family’s
application at the preliminary stage. Unhappy with the process, the Rice family sued. The
family claimed that Johnstown had unlawfully delegated legislative authority to the P&Z
Commission, violating its due process rights under the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
The family sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
The district court was skeptical. Because the farm was not located in Johnstown, but in
adjacent Monroe Township, the court held that the Rice family lacked standing to bring its claim
and granted summary judgment to the Village. We disagree. Whatever the merits of the claim,
the Rice family has standing to bring it. But because the Johnstown ordinance at issue has since
been amended, the family’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. Only the claim
for damages survives. Therefore, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the
district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
|