CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
HOBART-MAYFIELD, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL OPERATING COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
FOR ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-1441 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-12712—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Argued: January 18, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: SILER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SILER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Hobart-Mayfield, Inc. (Mayfield) is the maker of a
football helmet accessory. The accessory is purported to reduce the severity of football helmet
impact when it is installed on an existing football helmet. Defendants are National Operating
Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE); Riddell, Inc. (Riddell); Kranos
Corp. (d/b/a/ Schutt Sports); and Xenith, LLC (Xenith) (collectively “Helmet Manufacturers”).
NOCSAE is a nonprofit organization that develops and promotes safety standards for athletic
equipment. It has a safety certification that can be applied to football helmets that meet
NOCSAE’s standards. Helmet Manufacturers are makers of football helmets. Mayfield filed a
complaint alleging that NOCSAE and Helmet Manufacturers are restraining trade in the football-helmet market, engaging in an overarching conspiracy to limit competition, and subjecting
Mayfield to tortious interference of business relationships or expectations. Mayfield’s complaint
was met with Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis that Mayfield failed to
state a claim for plausible relief. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
We AFFIRM. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
RONALD WEISER; MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Secretary
of State,
Defendant-Appellee,
WHITMER FOR GOVERNOR COMMITTEE,
Intervenor-Appellee. |
No. 22-1014 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:21-cv-00816—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: June 9, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: WHITE, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants—Ronald Weiser, a
Republican donor and chair of the Michigan Republican Party (MRP), and the MRP—filed this
action against Defendant-Appellee, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, alleging that an
interpretative statement and a declaratory ruling issued by the Michigan Secretary of State in the
1980s (the recall exception) violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it allows
supporters of Governor Gretchen Whitmer to make or receive contributions on more favorable
terms than Weiser or the MRP with respect to the 2022 gubernatorial election. The district court
dismissed the action for lack of standing after concluding that neither Weiser nor the MRP had
suffered an injury in fact. Because Weiser and the MRP fail to plausibly demonstrate that the
recall exception prevents Weiser or the MRP from equally supporting their preferred
gubernatorial candidate, we AFFIRM. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
WILD EGGS HOLDINGS, INC.; WILD EGGS OPERATIONS,
LLC; WILD EGGS FRANCHISING, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 21-5962 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:20-cv-00501—Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge.
Argued: June 9, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky suspended
in-person, “non-essential” business through respective “Stay at Home” orders. So plaintiff Wild
Eggs1 halted dine-in operations at its restaurants in those states and then sought insurance
coverage for lost revenue from defendant State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company.
Wild Eggs claims in this lawsuit that State Auto breached the parties’ insurance contract when it
denied coverage. The district court granted State Auto’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Wild
Eggs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
STEPHANIE L. STEIGERWALD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-3023 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:17-cv-01516—James S. Gwin, District Judge.
Argued: October 28, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. The Social Security Administration (SSA)
failed to perform a statutorily obligated duty to pay claimants the total amount of benefits to
which they are entitled. To ensure that claimants receive the entirety of these benefits, Congress
enacted two provisions in the Social Security Act: a judicial-review provision to keep the
agency honest and an attorney-fees provision to incentivize lawyers to represent claimants.
Because the SSA may not hide behind these statutory provisions merely because it erred at the
end, rather than at the beginning, of the benefits-award process, we affirm the judgment of the
district court. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MARK M. MESSING,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Nos. 21-2780/2790 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:20-cv-00351—Hala Y. Jarbou, District Judge.
Argued: June 9, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Mark Messing received long-term disability benefits
from Defendant Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company (“Provident”) from 2000 until
2018, at which time, Provident terminated Messing’s benefits. Messing commenced this action
seeking the reinstatement of his benefits. Provident counterclaimed that it was entitled to
reimbursement for the benefits it had paid Messing over those eighteen years. The district court
denied Messing’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, which sought to reinstate his
benefits, finding that Messing had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he
remained unable to work; but the court granted Messing’s motion for summary judgment on
Provident’s counterclaim. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE
in part. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IRIS LISSETH RODRIGUEZ DE PALUCHO; C. B. P. R.;
JOSE MIGUEL PALUCHO LARA; M. A. P. R.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. |
No. 21-3611 |
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A 209 848 963; A 209 848 964; A 213 139 785; A 213 139 786.
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: SILER, CLAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Nobody would dispute that El Salvador has a serious problem
with violence from private gangs like MS-13. That gang’s repeated crimes—including robbery,
extortion, and death threats—drove Iris Lisseth Rodriguez de Palucho; her husband, Jose Miguel
Palucho Lara; and their two children to seek asylum and withholding of removal in the United
States. Yet those remedies have long been interpreted to contain a “state-action” element,
meaning that immigrants must show that they fear violence in their countries from the
government or from parties that the government is unable or unwilling to control. The Board of
Immigration Appeals denied relief to Iris and Jose because they failed to show that the
Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control MS-13. Iris and Jose now claim that
the Board overlooked reports about the general conditions in El Salvador. They also argue that
these reports would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude that the Salvadoran
government could not protect them from the gang. This case thus requires us to consider when
the Board’s failure to expressly discuss certain evidence compels a remand for it to reconsider
factual findings. It also requires us to consider when a country’s general conditions can permit a
presumption that its government cannot protect its populace from private harm. Ultimately,
because the Board recited the proper legal standards and because we must defer to its factual
findings, we deny the petition for review. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
HUNTER DOSTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
HON. FRANK KENDALL, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Air Force, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 22-3702 |
On Motion for Emergency Stay
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:22-cv-00084—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 9, 2022
Before: KETHLEDGE, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
ORDER
_________________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In this case the plaintiffs allege that the Department of the
Air Force de facto rejects every request it receives for a religious exemption to its COVID-19
vaccine mandate—while granting requests for medical and administrative exemptions relatively
freely. The district court preliminarily enjoined the Department from taking, during the
pendency of this suit, certain punitive measures against a class of service members with sincere
faith-based objections to receiving the vaccine. The Department has appealed that order and
now moves for an emergency stay of the class-wide injunction, challenging for the most part the
district court’s reasoning in certifying the class. We deny the Department’s motion but expedite
our consideration of its appeal. |
|