CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: FORD MOTOR COMPANY F-150 AND RANGER TRUCK FUEL ECONOMY
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
__________________________________________________________
MARSHALL B. LLOYD; TRACEY TRAVIS; DUSTIN DAWSON AND RICK SHAWLEY;
MICHAEL SMITH; EVAN ALLEN; AL BALLS; BRIAN LEJA; STEPHEN MATTSON;
JOHN SAUTTER; RANDY TRANSUE; RICK SHURTLIFF; RONALD J. DISMUKES;
JEFFERY FOSHEE; ACCURATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; STEVE BEAVERS;
DAVID BREWER; RYAN COMBS; VICTOR PEREZ; HAROLD BROWER; KYLE
MANNION; NICHOLAS LEONARDI; DEAN KRINER; JAMES WILLIAMS; MATTHEW
COMBS; DUSTIN WALDEN; STEVEN HULL; KENNETH BERNARD; MARK HILL;
CODY SMITH; DANIEL GARDNER; ROBERT GOOLSBY; JOHN JUNG; MATTHEW
SMITH; JOSH BRUMBAUGH; RYAN HUBERT; WILLIAM DON COOK; HILARY
GOODFRIEND; KATHRYN HUMMEL; SCOTT FORMAN; DILLON DRAKE; RAMIN
SARTIP, DARREN HONEYCUTT; AHMED ABDI; JAMAR HAYNES; SCOTT
WHITEHILL; MATTHEW BROWNLEE; BENJAMIN BISCHOFF, STEPHEN
LESZCZYNSKI; CASSANDRA MORRISON; ROBERT RANEY; DAVID POLLEY; MARK
NAPIER; KEITH FENCL; MARK ARENDT; HARVEY ANDERSON; ROSALYNDA
GARZA; JEFFREY QUIZHPI; JEFFREY KALOUSTIAN; RONALD CEREMELLO;
RANDALL MAINGOT; GEORGE ANDREW RAYNE; ROBERT LOVELL; SAMUEL
HUFFMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 22-1245 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Nos: 19-md-02901, 19-cv-11319, 19-cv-11639, 19-cv-11728, 19-cv-11728, 19-cv11993, 19-cv-12015, 19-cv-12035, 19-cv-12080, 19-cv-12135, 19-cv-12309–12310, 19-
cv-12373, 19-cv-12375, 19-cv-12377, 19-cv-12427, 19-cv-12436–12438, 19-cv-12554,
19-cv-12895, 19-cv-13197, and 20-cv-12272—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.
Argued: March 8, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2023
Before: GRIFFIN, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
Plaintiffs are a group of consumers alleging that defendant Ford Motor Company
intentionally submitted false fuel economy testing figures for certain vehicles to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plaintiffs claim that this, in turn, led the agency to
provide an inaccurate fuel economy estimate to consumers, which induced consumers (including
plaintiffs) to buy those vehicles. The district court ruled that federal law preempted plaintiffs’
state-law claims. We agree and affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 7 ZONE
1 PENSION FUND; TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL
WORKERS LOCAL 7 ZONE 1 HEALTH AND WELFARE
FUND; TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 7
ZONE 1 FIVE CITIES ASSOCIATION JOINT
APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING FUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PRO SERVICES, INC., a Michigan Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 22-1566 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:18-cv-01443—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.
Argued: January 11, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2023
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. The trustees of three multi-employer benefit funds
(“the Funds”)1 sued Pro Services, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA),
29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., to recover unpaid benefit contributions allegedly owed by Pro Services.
The issue on appeal is whether a category of Pro Services’ employees—known as Full-Service
Maintenance Technicians (“FMTs”)—performed work covered by the operative collective
bargaining agreement (the “CBA” or “Agreement”), triggering Pro Services’ payment obligation
to the Funds for the hours worked by the FMTs.
The district court granted Pro Services’ motion for summary judgment—it was
undisputed that the FMTs worked in manufacturing, and the court concluded that the CBA
covered workers in the construction industry based only on a caption in the CBA. For the
reasons stated below, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and
remand the case for further proceedings. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SHH HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALLIED WORLD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-3283 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cv-02900—James S. Gwin, District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2023
Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellee SHH Holdings, LLC, sued
defendant-appellant Allied World Specialty Insurance Company (“Allied World”) after Allied
World declined insurance coverage for SHH’s settlement of certain employees’ retaliation claims
under the False Claims Act. SHH sued for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, seeking a declaratory judgment and money damages. The district court
granted summary judgment to SHH on its breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims
and to Allied World on the bad faith claim. The district court also granted attorney fees to SHH,
finding that Ohio law permits fees when an insured party is forced to litigate to obtain coverage.
Allied World appeals both the grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney fees.
Because the plain language of SHH’s policy excluded coverage for the retaliation claims, we
reverse. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
BEAVER STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 22-3600 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:22-cv-00006—Benita Y. Pearson, District Judge.
Argued: March 15, 2023
Decided and Filed: April 21, 2023
Before: CLAY, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Beaver Street Investments, LLC (“BSI”) commenced this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Summit County, Ohio (“County”)
violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The district court granted the County’s motion
to dismiss, holding that BSI’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
We REVERSE and REMAND for the reasons set forth below. |
|