SCR is a premier property and liability program for K-12 public school districts across southern California, and CMDA is proud to serve on their Attorney Panel.

Seminar topics included an overview of the challenging insurance marketplace and relevant trends; a discussion on how professionals are best incorporating the use of artificial intelligence into their daily workload and important risk management methods to implement to mitigate potential exposure using these platforms; and a summary of the key components of the Governor’s 2026-27 State Budget proposal.

Mr. Ferris enjoyed attending the conference and networking with SCR members while sharing insight and strategies on navigating liability issues impacting public school districts.

Daniel W. Ferris is a partner in our Riverside office where he focuses his practice on public entity defense, insurance defense, civil litigation, and education law. He manages cases from inception through trial, including preparing pleadings, motions, and briefs, managing discovery, taking and defending depositions, and handling court appearances, mediations, arbitrations, and trials. Additionally, he writes briefs for submission to all levels of state and federal courts and performs legal research and writing for all areas of law handled by the Firm. He may be reached at (951) 276-4420 or dferris@cmda-law.com.

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 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.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho was honored to have played a role in this important civic achievement. Our attorneys provided legal guidance and strategic support to the Lansing Charter Commission throughout the review and amendment process, helping to navigate complex legal considerations and ensure compliance with Michigan law. This effort was spearheaded by Kristen Rewa, a partner in our Grand Rapids office. Kristen’s leadership, deep expertise in municipal law, and unwavering commitment to public service were instrumental in guiding the Commission through the drafting, review, and public engagement phases. Her thoughtful counsel helped the Commission shape a charter that is both forward-looking and grounded in legal integrity. Kristen was supported by a dedicated team of attorneys who contributed research, analysis, and procedural insight. Together, they worked closely with commission members, city officials, and community stakeholders to ensure the amended charter reflects Lansing’s values and priorities.

We commend the voters of Lansing for their engagement and support of this initiative. The approval of the revised charter is a testament to the city’s commitment to transparent, effective, and responsive local government. Congratulations again to the City of Lansing—and thank you for allowing us to be part of this historic process.

Kristen Rewa is a partner in our Grand Rapids office where she focuses her practice on municipal law, law enforcement defense and litigation, employment and labor law, and insurance defense. She may be reached 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. 

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 case involved a trip and fall at a public library. In granting summary disposition, the court affirmed that the “public building exception” to governmental immunity does not extend to temporary or movable items within a public building.

This ruling reinforces that municipalities generally maintain immunity from liability for injuries caused by non-permanent conditions in a public building. The court specifically determined that an upturned, movable rug, which caused a plaintiff to fall, was a “transitory condition” and not a permanent fixture of the building. This distinction is crucial, as the public building exception applies only to dangerous or defective conditions of the building itself or its permanent fixtures.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of governmental immunity and its exceptions. For municipalities, this decision is a favorable outcome, limiting potential liability for incidents involving temporary items within public buildings. It serves as a reminder that robust legal defense in such matters can uphold governmental immunity, protecting public resources.

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.

Attorney Cross and Attorney Grant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs did not suffer any injury, and they had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the transfer of the park to the township. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted summary judgment, noting that “[t]he record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for Plaintiffs on their due process claim.” Although the plaintiffs also raised claims under state law, the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over those claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

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.