CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
BANNUM, INC; BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC,
Respondents. |
Nos. 21-2664/2690 |
On Motion for Attorney Fees.
Nos. 07-CA-207685; 07-CA-211090; 07-CA-215356.
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2024
Before: MOORE, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
ORDER
_________________________
PER CURIAM. On February 23, 2024, we held Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of
Saginaw, LLC (collectively “Bannum”) in civil contempt and ordered Bannum to pay to the
National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reasonable attorney fees. The NLRB now seeks
$14,872.80 in attorney fees. For the following reasons, we GRANT in full the NLRB’s request,
and we order Bannum to pay the NLRB attorney fees in the amount of $14,872.80. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY; CATO
INSTITUTE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MIGUEL CARDONA, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education, in his official capacity; RICHARD
CORDRAY, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student
Aid, U.S. Department of Education, in his official
capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-1736 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:23-cv-11906—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: May 17, 2024
Before: SILER, COLE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Many people consider a college education the ticket to the
American dream. Some take out student loans to get the ticket. Paying back those loans can turn
into a nightmare. Congress and the U.S. Department of Education stepped in to help by creating
income-driven student-loan repayment plans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
Various problems arose with these plans, including student-loan servicers steering
borrowers into postponing or reducing their student-loan payments for extended periods of time.
In response, the Department of Education announced, in April 2022 and July 2023, a one-time
account adjustment that would count months or years that borrowers spent in excessive
forbearance status toward debt forgiveness. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Cato
Institute did not take kindly to the Department of Education’s action, so they sued to stop it. The
question presented is whether Plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged that they suffered an
injury in fact resulting from the adjustment based on competitor standing and deprivation of a
procedural right. We hold that it does not. We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
|