Partner Kevin Campbell and associate Daniel El-Sibai of the Livonia office are strong examples. Kevin focuses on appellate work, and Daniel on civil defense, yet both also contribute to the firm’s sports law practice.

Last fall, we shared that Kevin attended a roast honoring longtime CMDA client Ike Blessitt. A standout high school athlete from Detroit/Hamtramck, Ike’s professional baseball career was cut short by injuries. For years, however, he has given back to his community—offering free hitting instruction to local youth from a batting cage behind his Detroit home.

Recognizing that many young athletes in the city cannot afford travel baseball or access to indoor training facilities during the winter, Ike set out to purchase a heated cover for his batting cage. The goal was simple: keep the cage open year-round so kids could continue to train.

The roast—featuring several Detroit Tigers legends—was held to raise funds for this effort. Unfortunately, the individual entrusted with the proceeds failed to deliver the funds to Ike following the event.

CMDA Law stepped in.

Last week, the firm secured a $22,500 judgment on Mr. Blessitt’s behalf, and collection efforts are already underway. The outcome ensures that the funds raised will serve their intended purpose: supporting access and opportunity for young athletes in Detroit.

Local sportswriter Dave Mesrey (of the Metro Times), who is covering the story, shared the following on social media:

Through their diligent efforts during discovery, Attorneys Cross and Wilds found that the detainee’s claims were completely illegitimate and untrue. They moved for Summary Judgment, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the Motion. The Court concluded that the alleged retaliation did not constitute a First Amendment violation. The Court also agreed with the Defense that, based upon the detainee’s own conduct and testimony, there was no evidence of any unconstitutional punishment by jail officials. Plaintiff could not show a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims. As a result, the case was dismissed.

This dismissal emphasizes the significant impact that hard-working advocacy can have when fighting for justice for our clients.

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

Neal Wilds is an attorney in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice in the areas of law enforcement defense and litigation, municipal law, and insurance defense. Neal has significant trial and law enforcement defense experience. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or nwilds@cmda-law.com.

As a registered patent attorney, he brings a deep technical and legal foundation to clients at the forefront of innovation, brand-building, and entertainment. His practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, technology-driven business transactions, as well as business formations and business litigation. He regularly advises startups, business owners, entrepreneurs, and established companies on protecting their ideas, scaling their brands, and navigating complex IP and contract disputes. From securing patents to enforcing trademarks, Alexander’s legal work is designed to drive business growth while minimizing risk. He also brings niche expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their assets.

Illinois Rising Stars are among the top 2.5 percent of lawyers in the state and are either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Alexander may be reached in CMDA’s Livonia office at (734) 261-2400 or akarana@cmda-law.com.

The case involved a City electrical lineman who tested positive for methamphetamine on a random drug screen—a result that was confirmed on retest—and whose employment was terminated the following day based on the confirmed result. He claimed the decision was motivated by his prior National Guard service and an alleged intention to reenlist, as well as his pursuit of past benefits. The Court held that the positive drug test provided a sufficient, non-discriminatory basis for termination and granted summary judgment to the City and City Manager.

Key aspects of the opinion:

• Clear, legitimate reason for termination. The Court found that the confirmed positive drug test—standing alone—was a valid, non-discriminatory ground for termination under the City’s policy, which permits discipline up to and including termination.
• Honest-belief and reasoned decision-making. The Court credited the City Manager’s process: consulting the testing physician, the city attorney, and department heads; considering alternatives; and making a reasonably informed decision supported by the record.
• No protected status based on intent to reenlist. The Court concluded Plaintiff did not have USERRA-protected status merely by discussing a potential reenlistment and, even if he did, Defendants would have made the same decision given the confirmed test.
• Temporal proximity and other theories rebutted. Although Plaintiff pointed to timing and alleged inconsistencies, the Court held Defendants’ evidence overcame any inference of discrimination or retaliation.

Significance: This decision reinforces that employers may rely on confirmed drug-test results and a documented, consultative process to make safety-critical employment decisions, even in the face of USERRA claims premised on timing or workplace remarks unrelated to the ultimate decision-maker.

Result: All claims were dismissed on summary judgment. Congratulations to Greg and Kristen for a decisive, hard-earned win for our clients.

Gregory Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

Kristen Rewa is a partner in our Grand Rapids office where she focuses her practice on law enforcement defense and litigation, municipal law, employment and labor law, and insurance defense. She has experience in police liability and risk management, internal affairs investigations and disciplinary matters, and public safety policies and procedures. She may be reached in our Grand Rapids office at (616) 975-7470 or krewa@cmda-law.com.

The case centered on allegations that law enforcement failed to adequately respond during a wellness check, which preceded the discovery of the decedent in a state of medical crisis. According to the complaint, the decedent’s daughter became concerned after being unable to reach him by phone. She contacted the local sheriff’s office, which dispatched a deputy to conduct a wellness check. The deputy performed a search of the property and reported that everything appeared fine, noting the presence of the decedent’s vehicle near the garage. Shortly after the deputy left, a family member discovered the decedent hanging from a tractor near the garage. He passed away several days later.

Plaintiff initially brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including equal protection and due process violations, as well as a Monell claim against the municipal entity. However, in response to the defendants’ motion, plaintiff explicitly stated she did not contest the legal arguments and stipulated to dismissal of those claims. The court treated this as a deliberate abandonment and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the federal claims. With those claims resolved, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.

This case highlights how strategic and thorough briefing can significantly narrow the scope of litigation. Defense counsel’s arguments were so compelling that plaintiff abandoned nearly all of their claims before the court had to rule on their merits.

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

Gregory Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

The case arose from an incident in a rural northern Michigan county where officers responded to a 911 call reporting gunfire and shouting. Upon arrival, officers encountered the plaintiff, a confrontational individual who refused to cooperate with their investigation. The situation escalated quickly, with the plaintiff physically resisting officers, resulting in her arrest. The plaintiff was later charged with resisting and obstructing police, though the charges were eventually dismissed. Following the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit alleging excessive force, false arrest, failure to intervene, and municipal liability under Monell for inadequate training and supervision.

The court’s opinion emphasized the importance of evaluating law enforcement actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene—not with the benefit of hindsight. The judge noted that officers often face tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations, and their decisions must be assessed accordingly. The Court’s key findings included:

• Probable Cause Was Established: The court ruled that the arrest was supported by probable cause, as previously determined in a state court preliminary hearing. This finding barred the plaintiff from relitigating the issue in federal court.
• Force Was Reasonable: The officers’ use of force was deemed objectively reasonable given the circumstances. The court found no evidence of gratuitous or excessive physical contact, especially considering the plaintiff’s resistance during the arrest.
• Qualified Immunity Applied: Even if any constitutional violations had occurred, the court held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
• No Municipal Liability: The county was not found liable under Monell, as there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct or deliberate indifference in training or supervision.

This ruling reinforces the legal protections afforded to officers who act reasonably in high-stakes situations. It also underscores the importance of qualified immunity and the rigorous standards plaintiffs must meet to hold municipalities liable under federal civil rights laws. For law enforcement agencies and officers, this decision is a strong affirmation of the principle that courts must consider the realities of policing—not just courtroom hindsight—when evaluating claims of misconduct.

Haider Kazim is an Equity Partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, FOIA/OMA, tax tribunal practice, employment law, property law, law enforcement and defense, and insurance defense. He represents and defends municipalities throughout Michigan in zoning and land use disputes, ordinance enforcement actions, employment claims involving allegations of discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing, claims arising under FOIA and OMA, and general municipal law. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or hkazim@cmda-law.com. 

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com. 

First Down: The Likelihood of Confusion Playbook

Trademark law throws its first flag under Lanham Act § 2(d), which bars marks “likely to cause confusion” with existing registrations. The TTAB reviews this under the DuPont factors, looking at similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods, channels of trade, and the all-important fame of the prior mark.

• Similarity of marks. OSU has registrations for BUCKEYES, and “BUCKEYE TEARS” doesn’t exactly run a trick play—it squarely references the same mascot. Connotation counts, and consumers may reasonably assume some “sponsorship” by Ohio State.
• Goods and channels. While OSU isn’t selling beer at the Shoe (yet), collegiate licensing covers everything from hoodies to tailgate chairs. Courts recognize that when brands extend across merchandise, fans might think even alcohol is licensed.
• Fame. Ohio State’s licensing program has racked up $145M+ in royalties and $2.2B in retail sales over the past decade. That’s a stat line any athletic department would envy, and and it bolsters OSU’s case that BUCKEYES is more than a mascot; it’s a commercial powerhouse.

Like a replay review, the TTAB will slow down the tape to see if the public would think “BUCKEYE TEARS” is a cheeky parody or a licensed extra point.

Second Down: Dilution by Blurring (and Tarnishment)

The dilution claim—Lanham Act § 43(c)—is OSU’s Hail Mary. To win here, OSU must prove BUCKEYES is famous to the general public of the U.S., not just to scarlet-and-gray diehards. If they cross that line to fame, then “BUCKEYE TEARS” could be tackled for blurring (weakening distinctiveness) or tarnishment (associating the school’s identity with alcohol).

The applicant will try a Michigan-style counterpunch: parody. But parody as a source identifier often fumbles. Courts have ruled that a joke that doubles as a trademark loses the safe harbor. It’s one thing to chant “We don’t give a damn for the whole state of Michigan,” it’s another to bottle it and slap it on a label.

Third Down: The False Suggestion Option Play

Under § 2(a), marks that falsely suggest a connection with an institution get sacked. If the TTAB believes “BUCKEYE TEARS” points unmistakably to Ohio State and implies affiliation, that’s another penalty. And unlike a questionable targeting call, this one sticks.

Fourth Down: What the TTAB Crowd Should Expect

• Procedural clock: Answer due October 2025, with discovery and trial stretching into 2027. Like overtime in a Michigan–Illinois slugfest, this could drag on.
• Evidence: Expect surveys, licensing history, and maybe even expert testimony on consumer perception. TTAB cases are often won on the margins—think of it as a field goal battle, not a 70-yard touchdown.
• Outcome prediction: Confusion alone may be a tough conversion—after all, most fans know Ann Arbor isn’t ordering kegs from Columbus. But OSU has a strong chance of sustaining the opposition on sponsorship/approval confusion and, if they prove nationwide fame, dilution. I’d bet the TTAB ultimately denies registration, leaving “BUCKEYE TEARS” as nothing more than a rivalry chant.

Rivalry Banter

• Filing this opposition is OSU’s version of a “goal line stand.”
• “BUCKEYE TEARS” might feel like a clever interception, but if OSU proves fame, the Board may blow the whistle on dilution.
• Michigan fans may relish every drop, but the TTAB doesn’t hand out “Paul Bunyan trophies” for parody.
• The Board’s ruling could be the off-field equivalent of Harbaugh’s headset toss—a decision that makes headlines and fuels tailgate banter for years.

In trademark law, as in football, the refs (here, the TTAB) don’t care who you root for. They call it by the rulebook: 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), § 1125(c), and TMEP § 1207 on confusion. But with the BUCKEYE brand’s fame stats, it’s hard to see “BUCKEYE TEARS” making it past the red zone.

And so, as we await the TTAB’s final whistle, one thing is certain: rivalry never rests, not even in trademark law.

Go Green.

Alexander R. Karana, an attorney with the law firm of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, is an accomplished Intellectual Property attorney. He is admitted to practice in Michigan and Illinois. As a registered patent attorney, he brings a deep technical and legal foundation to clients at the forefront of innovation, brand-building, and entertainment. His practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and technology-driven business transactions. He regularly advises startups, creators, and established companies on protecting their inventions, scaling their brands, and navigating complex IP and contract disputes. From securing patents to enforcing trademarks, Alexander’s legal work is designed to drive business growth while minimizing risk. He also brings niche expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their creative assets.

Mr. Karana received a Juris Doctor degree (Concentration in Intellectual Property Law- Patent Track) from University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where he graduated with distinction. His legal journey has been complemented by his background in Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University.

He may be reached in our Livonia office at (734) 261-2400 or akarana@cmda-law.com.

Shane Nolan, a partner in our Livonia office, recently obtained summary disposition in a premises liability case on behalf of a southeast Michigan township.

The case involved the “sidewalk exception” to governmental immunity. The case arose from a trip and fall on a public sidewalk, where the Plaintiff alleged that the township did not properly maintain their sidewalk and sought damages for injuries sustained from her fall. Mr. Nolan moved quickly, asserting governmental immunity and demonstrating that Plaintiff could not satisfy the statutory exception. He irrefutably proved the township exercised due care and lacked fault, leading to a favorable judgment and dismissal of the claims against his client.

After oral argument, the judge granted the Firm’s motion for Summary Disposition on the premises liability claim, protecting our client from additional expenses and preventing unnecessary further litigation. This case reinforces the protections available to our municipal clients under Michigan law. It serves as a reminder that exceptions to governmental immunity are narrow, and plaintiffs must satisfy specific legal standards to proceed against municipalities in premises liability actions.

Shane Nolan is a partner in the Firm’s Livonia office where he focuses his practice on the defense of liability lawsuits on behalf of insurance companies, self-insured corporations, businesses, and municipal entities in a wide variety of civil litigation, as well as premises liability, general liability, and insurance coverage disputes. He also focuses his practice on municipal law and utility law. He has successfully argued dispositive motions, tried multiple cases to verdict, and regularly represents clients in various alternative dispute resolution forums. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or snolan@cmda-law.com.

The claims stemmed from a separate lawsuit involving a Northern Michigan county, which was also ultimately dismissed by a federal court. The county went into closed session to discuss a settlement proposal, which prompted the OMA claims arguing that the county improperly went into closed session because the settlement offer was a “no cost” settlement offer. The plaintiff also argued that the county, through its county administrator, violated the OMA when it retained defense counsel in the other lawsuit, and when it failed to, among other things, answer the lawsuit and discovery requests in an open session.

Attorneys Cross and Grant argued that the county administrator was not a “public body” under the OMA and that the retention of defense counsel, responding to a lawsuit, and responding to discovery requests were not “decisions” as defined by the OMA that had to be made in an open session. They also argued that even though the settlement offer was “no cost,” discussion in an open session would have had a detrimental financial impact on the county. The circuit court ultimately agreed and dismissed the case.

This case highlights the importance of having sound legal advice prior to any action by a legislative or governing body to ensure compliance with the OMA, and the importance of having experienced defense counsel in the event litigation arises.

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

Gregory Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

The claim involved a visitor to Traverse City, who slipped and fell on ice in the condominium association’s parking lot. The association had relied upon a snow removal contractor to address the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot. While the contractor’s efforts greatly improved the condition of the parking lot, it did not get every patch of snow and ice. Prior to his fall, the plaintiff acknowledged being aware that it was icy and snowy, and in the seconds before his fall, his wife warned him to be careful of the ice in the parking lot.

Plaintiff claimed the status of an invitee, but attorneys Grant and Cross argued that, as to the association, plaintiff was actually a licensee and as a licensee the association only owed plaintiff the duty to warn him of unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the association was aware and of which the plaintiff was unaware. Attorneys Grant and Cross argued that snow and ice in Northern Michigan in the winter is not an unreasonably dangerous condition and because the plaintiff knew or should have known of snow and ice in the parking lot, they did not owe him any duty to warn of snow and ice.

Plaintiff, who suffered a broken arm because of his fall, demanded settlement in the amount of $300,000. However, the circuit court granted Attorneys Grant and Cross’ motion for summary disposition, dismissing the claims in their entirety.

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

Gregory Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.