Western Michigan Federal Courts
Posts Categorized Judges
-
Wielding a Scalpel, Court Grants Injunction In Favor of Surgical Instrument Manufacturer
May 20, 2013Headquartered in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Stryker Corporation is a manufacturer of surgical instruments, including image guided "navigation software and hardware" that enables surgeons to precisely insert implants or perform surgeries. In 2004, Stryker hired Defendant James Bruty as a sales… Read More » -
Hookah Lounge Has Serious Cable Problems, and Dish Network Will Not Pay for It
May 1, 2013My cable bill seems to go up each month, but I know that if I go back and read my lengthy, small-print cable agreement, somewhere I will be able to find where I agreed to it. I'm sure if I called and complained, one of the first things I would be told is to read my contract. Someone should have told that to the defendant in Joe Hand Promotions Inc. v. The Hookah Lounge Inc., where Judge Bell recently dismissed Dish Network—a third-party defendant—from the lawsuit, finding that Dish Network (a) was not required to indemnify The Hookah Lounge and (b) did not breach its contract with The Hookah Lounge.
Read More » -
Western District of Michigan Celebrates 150th Anniversary
March 22, 2013On March 12, 2013, the Historical Society for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan presented "Thank God for Michigan," a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the formation of the Western District of Michigan.
Read More » -
No Duty to Indemnify Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations
March 11, 2013In Big Dutchman Inc. v. Midwest Livestock Systems Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-288, the court addressed whether a settlement agreement required indemnification of claims that were barred by the statute of limitations.
Read More » -
Court Reaffirms that Motions to Dismiss Must Be Based on Information Expressly Included in the Complaint
February 14, 2013In Mahindra Forgings Ltd. v. Bentler Automotive Corp., Bentler moved to dismiss an amended complaint based on expiration of the statute of limitations. Bentler's argument was that because the complaint generally referenced e-mails exchanged between the parties, the substance of those e-mails became part of the complaint for purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Bentler asserted that those e-mails demonstrated that Mahindra's complaint was time-barred.
Read More » -
Court Grants Summary Judgment for Non-Moving Party in Sales Representative Dispute
February 11, 2013When deciding whether to file a summary judgment motion, attorneys should be careful to consider the possibility that the court may choose to enter summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party. This is what recently occurred in Dietrich v. Bell Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-1145.
Read More »