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.

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. 

The Judge found that even taking the plaintiff’s version of the facts at face value, the conduct did not violate clearly established law. Specifically, there was no case—binding or persuasive—that held the type of municipal conduct at issue amounted to a Fourth Amendment violation. The opinion zeroed in on the first prong of qualified immunity and whether a showing had been made that officers showed a reckless disregard for the truth or stated a deliberate falsehood. The Court found they did not—and dismissed the case with prejudice.

This was not a procedural technicality; this was a full analysis on the merits. The Court looked at the circumstances, the case law, and the qualified immunity standard and made a decision that sends a clear message to opposing counsel and to public entities trying to do their jobs within the bounds of the law.

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. 

The Plaintiff, a new police officer and military reservist, was ordered to attend military training for five months. When he left for training, the officer was on probation, had completed his field training, but had just begun his period of observation as a solo officer. When he returned, the department kept him on probation to monitor his ability to meet the department’s expectations. Unfortunately, he did not. He was terminated from employment after an incident that resulted in the county prosecutor issuing Brady/Giglio letter for his actions.

The officer claimed the city violated USERRA by re-employing him as a probationary officer and unfairly targeted him for discipline because of his military status. He filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) office, the federal agency charged with investigating and enforcing USERRA. VETS issued a letter asserting that the city violated USERRA and demanded that the city reemploy and compensate the officer. The city disagreed. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal court, demanding seven figures.

Despite the agency ruling, Grant and Rewa were able to demonstrate to the federal court that the city did not violate USERRA or the officer’s constitutional rights. Citing to testimony from the police chief on the importance of the probationary period to evaluating a police officer’s ability to perform his duties in a professional, competent, and legal manner, the Court agreed that the city had the right under USERRA to re-employ the officer as a probationary employee to complete a bona fide observation period. The Court agreed with our attorneys’ legal analysis, which showed the officer’s (and VETS) position was flawed and inconsistent with the current wording of the statute, the DOL’s own administrative guidance, and prior court opinions interpreting the statute.

The Court also agreed that the officer’s constitutional claims lacked merit. The Court dismissed the due process claim as an attempt to constitutionalize what was a contract dispute. Further, the Court found no evidence of any discriminatory animus, pointing to the officer’s own admissions at his deposition that he was not harassed based on his military status. Rather, our attorneys showed that the termination stemmed from the officer’s actions and the practical impossibility his actions posed: our client’s small police department simply cannot employ a police officer that the local prosecutor refused to use as a witness.

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 is Jacob Branham v. City of Allen Park PD, et al. The City, PD, police officer and Wayne County prosecutor were all dismissed on motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. However, the individual private citizen defendant was forced to trial without the availability of that immunity. Trial became necessary when plaintiff’s final settlement demand was $500,000. Plaintiff’s demand to the jury was $1 million.

Jim Acho is now 7-0 all time in federal jury trials. Know that should the need ever arise, CMDA and Jim Acho are ready to go to the mat for you.

The post Jim Acho Obtains No Cause ($0) Verdict From Federal Jury for Defense Client first appeared on Cummings, McClorey, Davis and Acho P.L.C. Attorneys/Lawyers.]]> https://cmda-law.com/postname/jim-acho-obtains-no-cause-0-verdict-from-federal-jury-for-defense-client/feed/ 0 10573 https://cmda-law.com/postname/kristen-rewa-obtains-dismissal-of-employment-discrimination-lawsuit/ https://cmda-law.com/postname/kristen-rewa-obtains-dismissal-of-employment-discrimination-lawsuit/#respond Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:53:30 +0000 https://cmda-law.com/?p=10097 Kristen Rewa, a partner in our Grand Rapids office, recently obtained dismissal of an employment discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a county and sheriff. The plaintiff, a former deputy, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging sex discrimination and retaliation against her former employer. She alleged that she experienced a culture of sexism and hostility, incidents of inappropriate behavior from a supervisor, difficulties in receiving backup on calls, reassignment of […]

Kristen Rewa, a partner in our Grand Rapids office, recently obtained dismissal of an employment discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a county and sheriff.

The plaintiff, a former deputy, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging sex discrimination and retaliation against her former employer. She alleged that she experienced a culture of sexism and hostility, incidents of inappropriate behavior from a supervisor, difficulties in receiving backup on calls, reassignment of overtime work, and disproportionately harsh discipline. She further claimed she was retaliated against for speaking out about issues within the sheriff’s office. The court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion. In so doing, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence showing she was treated differently because of her sex. Her retaliation claims lacked a clear causal connection to her complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff’s statements did not qualify for First Amendment protection because they were personal grievances rather than matters of public concern.

Ms. Rewa focuses her practice on law enforcement defense and litigation, municipal law, employment and labor law, and insurance defense. If you need assistance with legal matters related to Ms. Rewa’s areas of practice, she may be reached in our Grand Rapids office at (616) 975-7470 or krewa@cmda-law.com.

The post Kristen Rewa Obtains Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Lawsuit first appeared on Cummings, McClorey, Davis and Acho P.L.C. Attorneys/Lawyers.]]>

Matt Cross is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice in the areas of insurance defense litigation, law enforcement defense and litigation, and municipal law. Matt has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, and other municipal issues and has earned dismissals in each of these areas.

Previously, Matt worked as a judicial research attorney for Judge John Murphy in the Wayne County Circuit Court and as an associate attorney at two prominent firms. He previously served as Assistant City Attorney for Petoskey and Boyne City. Matt currently represents several municipalities and a public health organization. In his free time, he serves as an on-call firefighter for the Resort Bear Creek Fire Department.

Matt has been selected as a Michigan Rising Star by Michigan Super Lawyers from 2018-2023; Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch by Best Lawyers in 2022 and 2023; and an Up & Coming Lawyer by Michigan Lawyers Weekly in 2023.

He can be reached in the Firm’s Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

In 2017, the plaintiff sued Mr. Grant’s client and two other officers from different municipalities.  She alleged federal claims of unlawful search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, and denial of her right to intimate association. After several dispositive motions and appeals, the Sixth Circuit ultimately held that Mr. Grant’s client was entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Doug Curlew of the Livonia Office handled all of the appeals.

Greg Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he concentrates 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. Additionally, he frequently provides educational and training seminars on municipal topics to clients. He may be reached at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

The plaintiff then sued the detective in circuit court alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the detective gave false information in the police report and gave false and misleading testimony at the preliminary exam. The plaintiff also claimed that the detective was motivated by a prior lawsuit filed by the plaintiff’s uncle 6 years prior. Plaintiff’s claims were heavily disputed and vigorously defended.

Grant and Rewa filed a motion for summary disposition after lengthy discovery. The court granted the motion and held that the detective was entitled to governmental immunity and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Greg Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he concentrates 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.  Additionally, he frequently provides educational and training seminars on municipal topics to clients. 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 earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Michigan School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Grand Valley State University. She may be reached in our Grand Rapids office at (616) 975-7470 or krewa@cmda-law.com.