CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
HALEY HRDLICKA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 22-1328 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Port Huron.
No. 3:20-cv-11015—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2022
Decided and Filed: February 7, 2023
Before: SILER, GILMAN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Haley Hrdlicka was employed by General
Motors for over 30 years. After General Motors terminated her employment due to excessive
absenteeism, she brought this employment-discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of General Motors on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, we
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
EMMANUEL DUNAGAN; JESSICA MUSCARI; ROBERT J.
INFUSINO; STEPHANIE PORRECA,
Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SOUTH UNIVERSITY OF OHIO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
MARK E. DOTTORE,
Receiver-Appellee. |
No. 21-4014 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cv-00145—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.
Argued: July 19, 2022
Decided and Filed: February 7, 2023
Before: GIBBONS, ROGERS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Before the modern bankruptcy laws, federal courts had long
reorganized distressed corporate debtors using an equitable remedy: the appointment of a
receiver in an “equity receivership” to gather and safeguard the debtor’s assets for a fair division
among its creditors. These receiverships, although rare, continue to exist today. Receivers must
administer the debtor’s property in accordance with the “historical practice” of courts of equity.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 66. In this case, the receiver and several non-receivership parties entered into a
settlement that was contingent on the district court’s issuance of a “bar order” that would
permanently bar non-settling third parties from pursuing personal-liability claims against non-debtors who were not in the receivership. The district court approved this settlement and entered
the requested bar order. This case therefore raises the question of whether historical principles of
equity allowed the court to issue an injunction that protected the non-receivership assets of non-receivership parties. Because that type of non-debtor relief amounts to a remedy “previously
unknown to equity jurisprudence,” the district court lacked the authority to issue the bar order.
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 332 (1999). We thus
reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
|