CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
F.P. DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, MICHIGAN,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
   Nos. 20-1447/1466
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:18-cv-13690—George Caram Steeh, III, District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2021
Decided and Filed: October 13, 2021
Before: COLE, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. American history teems with stories and myths of trees. Johnny Appleseed’s apple trees and George Washington’s cherry tree are but a few of those timber tales that inspire and teach. Whether to plant or cut down a tree can be, for better or worse, an individual choice. But sometimes the government gets involved. For example, it can reward those who plant, see, e.g., Timber Culture Act of 1873, ch. 277, 17 Stat. 605 (granting additional land to homesteaders who planted seedlings), or compensate for land taken to conserve, see, e.g., Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 16 U.S.C. § 715 et seq. Those “carrot” measures serve to further the public interest in tree cultivation and management while compensating private parties for their property and efforts.

Here, however, the government used what F.P. Development portrays as the “stick” approach. Intending to help preserve its greenery, the Charter Township of Canton, Michigan, passed an ordinance that prohibits F.P. from removing certain trees on its land without a permit and requires F.P. to mitigate the removal. F.P. challenges the regulation, claiming that it constitutes a taking of its property without just compensation, an unreasonable seizure, and an excessive fine. The district court granted summary judgment to F.P. on the takings claim and to Canton on the others. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LUXSHARE, LTD.,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
ZF AUTOMOTIVE US, INC.; GERALD DEKKER; CHRISTOPHE MARNAT,
Respondents-Appellants.
   No. 21-2736
On Jurisdictional Show Cause Order, Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and Motion to Expedite.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
No. 2:20-mc-51245—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 13, 2021
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; ROGERS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

This case concerns discovery, but with an international flavor. ZF Automotive US, Inc., Gerald Dekker, and Christophe Marnat (collectively, “ZF US”) appeal a district court order granting limited discovery to Luxshare, Ltd., under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Luxshare plans to use the discovery in the parties’ international arbitration. ZF US moves for a stay pending appeal, highlighting the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Servotronics v. Rolls-Royce PLC, 141 S. Ct. 1684 (2021), as well as ZF US’s pending motion before the Supreme Court to grant an immediate appeal on the same issues raised in Servotronics.

. . .

Accordingly, the show cause order is withdrawn. The motion to stay pending appeal is DENIED. The motion to expedite is DENIED AS MOOT.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ex rel. CATHY OWSLEY,
Relator-Appellant,
v.
FAZZI ASSOCIATES, INC.; CARE CONNECTION OF CINCINNATI; GEM CITY HOME CARE; ASCENSION HEALTH CARE; ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
   No. 19-4240
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:15-cv-00511—Timothy S. Black, District Judge.
Argued: November 17, 2020
Decided and Filed: October 13, 2021
Before: KETHLEDGE, DONALD, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Cathy Owsley—a nurse for defendant Care Connection, a company providing home-health care to Medicare patients—alleged in considerable detail that she observed, firsthand, documents showing that her employer had used fraudulent data from Fazzi Associates, Inc. to submit inflated claims for payment to the federal and Indiana state governments. She therefore sued both companies and some related entities under the False Claims Act and an Indiana statute. But Owsley’s complaint provided few details that would allow the defendants to identify any specific claims—of the hundreds or likely thousands they presumably submitted—that she thinks were fraudulent. For that reason alone her complaint fell short of the requirements of Civil Rule 9(b). We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of her claims.