Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ

8 Citing cases

  1. Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc.

    20-cv-12933 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022)   Cited 7 times

    Cf. Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch., 300 Mich.App. at 262; see also Heike v. Guevara, 654 F.Supp.2d 658, 676 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (applying Michigan law and finding plaintiff “did not plead her defamation cause of action with sufficient specificity” where plaintiff did not identify particular statements); Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 523 F.Supp.2d 602, 606 (E.D. Mich. 2007), aff'd 306 Fed.Appx. 943 (6th Cir. 2009) (applying Michigan law and finding plaintiff “failed to identify the exact defamatory words that support his defamation claim.”).

  2. Law Enf't Officers Sec. Unions v. Int'l Unions

    No. 20-12544 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Courts within the Eastern District of Michigan are indeed split about whether the higher pleading standard applies to defamation claims filed in federal court. Compare Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 523 F.Supp.2d 602, 606 (E.D. Mich. 2007), aff'd, 306 Fed.Appx. 943 (6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that defamation claims should be pleaded with the higher standard), with State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Allied & Assocs., 860 F.Supp.2d 432, 447 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (stating that defamation claims did not require a heightened pleading standard).

  3. Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Livingston Cnty. Sheriff Bob Bezotte

    Case No. 11-CV-13460 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    District courts "should deny leave to amend" in circumstances involving: (1) undue delay in seeking leave to amend; (2) bad faith or dilatory motive; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies through previous amendments; (4) undue prejudice to adverse parties; and (5) futility of the proposed amendment. Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 306 F. App'x. 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2009). See also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995).

  4. Dewolff v. Hexacomb Corporation

    Case No. 1:09-cv-548 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 30, 2009)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the backpay component of the plaintiff's damages runs from the date of the plaintiff's termination through the date of entry of the judgment in the case

    See Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 589 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2008) (Griffin, J.) ("Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a court `should freely give leave when justice so requires,' the right to amend is not absolute or automatic.") (citing, inter alia, Sinay v. Lamson Sessions Co., 948 F.2d 1037, 1041 (6th Cir. 1991)). See, e.g., Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 306 F. App'x 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of leave to amend) (citations omitted). DeWolff's brief in support of his motion to remand reads, almost in its entirety:

  5. Beydoun v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    Case No. 09-10445 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 23, 2009)   Cited 20 times
    Dismissing an MCPA claim on a finding that plaintiff's failure to address defendants' arguments for dismissal "constitute[d] waiver or abandonment of the argument"

    To state a claim for defamation, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant: 1) made a "false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff"; 2) communicated the statement to a third party without privilege; and 3) acted with "fault amounting to at least negligence." Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 306 Fed. Appx. 943, 946 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Royal Palace Homes v. Channel 7 of Detroit, 495 N.W.2d 392, 393-94 (Mich. 1992)).

  6. Gutierrez v. 78th Judicial District Court

    Case No. 1:07-cv-1268 (W.D. Mich. May. 29, 2009)   Cited 6 times

    Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 589 F.3d 545, 551 (6th Cir. 2008) (Griffin, J.) (citing, inter alia, Sinay v. Lamson Sessions Co., 948 F.2d 1037, 1041 (6th Cir. 1991)). See, e.g., Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 306 F. App'x 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of leave to amend and citing, inter alia, Duggins v. Steak `n Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (upholding denial of leave to amend where movant "delayed pursuing this claim until after discovery had passed, the dispositive motion deadline had passed, and a motion for summary judgment had been filed", without justification for the delay)). The defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss in part and for summary judgment in part.

  7. Fallat v. Cryomed, LLC

    CASE NO. 08-14875 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    In order to establish a claim for defamation, "a plaintiff must show that the defendant 1) made a `false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff'; 2) communicated the statement to a third party without privilege; and 3) acted with `fault amounting to at least negligence.'" Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., No. 07-2520, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 1051, at *8 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2009) (quoting Royal Palace Homes v. Channel7 of Detroit, 495 N.W.2d 392, 393-94 (Mich. 1992)).

  8. Woods v. Capital University

    2009 Ohio 5672 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a promissory estoppel claim based on a precontract promise is impermissible where there is a subsequent written contract

    In considering the form and context of the alleged defamatory statement, courts consider the medium used to transmit it, and they are more likely to conclude that the statement relates to a matter of public concern if it appears in a widely disseminated publication. Williams v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. (C.A.6, 2009), 306 Fed.Appx. 943, 947 (citing Dun Bradstreet, 472 U.S. at 762, 105 S.Ct. at 2947, and Flamm v. Am. Assn. of Univ. Women (C.A.2, 2000), 201 F.3d 144, 150). However, the relevant concern need not be of paramount importance or national scope; "`it is sufficient that the speech concern matters in which even a relatively small segment of the general public might be interested.'"