|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Judge says Oakley's police department can operate
Posted: Sep 15, 2014 11:58 AM EDT
Updated: Sep 15, 2014 5:37 PM EDT
By Rebecca Trylch - bio | email
OAKLEY (WJRT) - (09/15/14) - A Saginaw County judge says Oakley's police department can operate - for now.
This is the latest development surrounding the village's police department since it was disbanded last week.
This news comes after officers were spotted patrolling during Oakley's Bike Run over the weekend, which some considered illegal.
Monday morning, the attorney for village trustee Francis Koski filed an emergency petition asking for a temporary and permanent restraining order. He asked the judge to force the Oakley Police Department to stop operating.
"Getting a emergency temporary restraining order is a very difficult thing to do," said Philip Ellison, Koski's attorney.
Judge Fred Borchard turned down that request, but agreed to take it up in the future. They'll talk about it again when both sides are present - most likely on Sept. 30, when Borchard planned to hear a separate, but related, case.
Both cases revolve around who's in charge in Oakley. Some village trustees believe the president pro-tem - who took that position after the president passed away in June - is making decisions she shouldn't be making. They believe all village business should be handled by the entire board.
In the meantime, the Oakley Police Department is still operating.
The village's Board of Trustees voted to shut down the department last Tuesday because they didn't have police liability coverage. Late Friday afternoon, police reservists came up with the money to buy that coverage. We don't know who specifically donated the money because there's no public list of reserve members.
Monday, Ellison argued the village Board of Trustees never approved that move.
"Very strong belief that we are on solid legal ground here. That the police department, particularly the chief, does not have the legal authority to buy insurance on his own dime to operate his own police department. The power of the Village belongs to the Village Council. The Village Council shut down the police department, and has the responsibility, if and when it wants to, to reopen police department," he said.
There is a major dispute over how and when officers started working again.
"It was pretty clear to me that the motion was that they would shut down until they had insurance," said Richard Hamilton, village attorney.
"Specifically it was noted that this issue had to come back before council for a vote again. That did not happen," Ellison said.
This latest legal battle is one of many involving the village of Oakley. Attorneys on both sides of the battle say it's been costly for this village of only 290 people.
"It's sad because, you know, litigation is expensive. It's expensive for plaintiff's, it's expensive for the village. The village has only got 300 people, and this stuff is real expensive," Hamilton said.
"They have paid in other ways. For example, they've lost their insurance through the Michigan Municipal League. Now to buy new insurance because of the actions of a few has made the cost of that exorbitant," Ellison said.
We talked to Chief Robert Reznick the phone, Monday. He didn't want to go on camera, but did say "the situation speaks for itself", adding he doesn't understand why certain people in town don't want police protection.
Reznick also said they are not a "heavy handed" department that writes a lot of tickets or arrests a lot of people - officers are just there to "keep the tranquility of the village". |
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:08 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Yes the reserve police paid for the insurance- insurance that was lost by the village because of lawsuits against Reznick. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:10 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:15 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The case is entitled Shanel Moore vs Jeffrey Weber, Michael Olcese, Weber & Olcese and Robert Reznick.
As noted by the Judge, this is one of several legal actions filed by the same law firm against the defendants. Weber & Olcese is a Michigan Law Firm for debt collection. Reznick, through his company Due process is a "licensed court officer authorized to seize a judgment debtor's property to satisfy a judgment."
At the time Reznick was a Deputy in Coleman, the Village of Mt, Morris, and the City of Perry Police Department. He was also deputized in the Gladwin Sherriff Department and the Midland County Sherriff Department.
Moore had a $4,487.67 judgment against her by Credit Acceptance Corporation and Weber & Olcese had filed the paperwork to seize her property. Reznick assigned two men to seize the property. They identified themselves s Deputy Sheriffs and flashed badges, but refused to give their names. They stated they were there on behalf of Reznick and they demanded $2500 or they would tke her and her children's belongings. Two more men showed up and they all waited s she made calls for the money. The receipt identified one of the men as Tom Royal, an independent contractor for Reznick.
Moore's mother wired her $1500, which the men took. They then gave her a card for Reznick and told her to make arrangements for monthly payments. She paid off the balance and then filed her lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleged Weber & Olcese were aware of Reznick's terroristic tactics. However Reznick was an independent contractor and Weber & Olcese were not liable for his actions. The Judge did note that Reznock's statements were contradictory depositions in some of the cases brought against him and his company Due Process. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:01 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
RODRIGUEZ v. PROCESS OF MICHIGAN, INC. | Leagle.com
www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020081006557
Defendants Robert Reznick and Due Process of Michigan now move for summary judgment on ... Rob Reznick P.O. Box 4148 Flint, MI 48504 -0148 However, Adams |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:08 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ann Rodriquez, Patricia Adams vs Due process of Michigan, Inc., Robert reznck, Robert McKenna and Ken Patterson
Rodriquez and her daughter, Adams, alleged tortious acts of process servers in executing order to seize property in Lapeer County.
There was also a motion for discovery actions based on the conduct of Robert Reznick and his attorneys in the course of discovery.
Adams financed a used car through Credit Acceptance. Shortly after the purchase, the car broke down and Adams stopped payment. She lso failed to respond to the lawsuit and received a default judgment. Periodic garnishments did not satisfy the judgment, so the company filed an order to seize property.
Carol Anthony, then employee of Weber & Olcese, filed the paperwork and circled Deputy Sheriff instead of designating Reznick. Her explanation was that in a "open court" allows the selection of a process server. However, the Lapeer District Court is a "closed court" and that option is not allowed.
Until abut 2003 or 2004 the 71A District court required execution of a judgment to be served by a deputy sheriff. About 2003-2004 the Sheriff Department decided that due to the lack of manpower, the department was no longer able to execute seizures or evictions. It was then that the Lapeer County Court privatized the function and used Court Rules to appoint it's own Court officers. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:43 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
"According to Defendant Robert McKenna, when Lapeer decided to privatize, he and Robert Reznick arranged a meeting with the Lapeer County Chief Judge, the Honorable Nick O. Holowka, whom McKenna and Reznick knew from Judge Holowka's time as a county prosecutor. (At that time, McKenna was a Michigan State Police Trooper and Reznick was a Lapeer County Deputy Sheriff.) They told the Judge that they were interested in applying to be Court Officers and Judge Holowka agreed to appoint them. [McKenna Dep. pp. 72-73.] They each obtained and presented a bond to the Court, signed an "Independent Contractor Agreement for Court Officer," see Plaintiffs' Ex. N, and they were appointed as Court Officers for the 71-A District Court approximately three weeks later. Id. at p. 73.
As provided in his Court Officer Agreement, McKenna received no salary or wages from the court. For his services, he was paid only the statutory fees as provided in M.C.L. §§ 552.23; 600.2555; and 600.2559. At the time, these statutes provided for payment of $27.00,4 plus mileage, plus the actual and reasonable expense for seizing and storing any property seized, and a fixed percentage of any monetary seizure or the proceeds of any sale of property — 7% of the first $5,000.00 and 3% of any amount exceeding the first $5,000.00.
McKenna testified that it was his understanding that in 2006, the 71-A District Court used a "rotation" system for assignment of seizure orders to the Court Officers for execution.5 His own personal practice was to either personally pick up, or have his sonin-law, Defendant Kenneth Patterson, a sales person who was in Lapeer three or four times a day, pick up orders from the court for him to execute, and bring them to his home in Davison, Michigan. Id. at p. 109; see also Patterson Dep., Defendants' Ex. 6, pp. 34-37.6 McKenna would then endorse the orders and proceed with execution. One of the Orders Patterson picked up and delivered to McKenna was the Order to Seize Property to satisfy CAC's Judgment against Patricia Adams" |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:45 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
"SERVICE OF THE ORDER TO SEIZE PROPERTY UPON PLAINTIFF ADAMS
At 8:30 p.m. on September 5, 2006, Defendants McKenna and Patterson served the Order to Seize Property on Patricia Adams at her home in North Branch, Michigan.8 Ms. Adams claims that Defendants announced that they were sheriff's deputies and that they wanted to talk to her inside the house. [Adams' 11/1/07Affidavit, Plaintiffs' Ex. 3, ¶¶ 4 and 5.]9 She alleges that, once inside the house, McKenna showed her the Order to Seize Property, id. ¶ 7, demanded money, and threatened to take all of the personal property in the house to satisfy her default judgment. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10.10 Adams also claims that McKenna told her that "their boss, Rob Reznick, had instructed them to get some money to satisfy the debt." Id. ¶ 8. (As discussed below, McKenna and Reznick both deny that Reznick was McKenna's "boss." They both, in fact, testified, that Reznick played no part in executing the seizure order at issue in this case.) She further alleges that she and her three siblings were ordered to remain in the kitchen area of the house, and that McKenna and Patterson threatened to have them arrested if she did not give them some money. Id. ¶ 14.
Ultimately, Adams' 18-year-old boyfriend, Jacob Schlaud, appeared and gave Adams $200 he allegedly borrowed from his family to give to McKenna and Patterson.
Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff claims that McKenna informed her that $200 was not enough. Id. at ¶ 18. Mrs. Rodriguez, who was not present when McKenna and Patterson had arrived at the house, then returned home and allegedly offered to give McKenna a post-dated check. Id. at 19. According to Adams, McKenna said he would "have to check with his boss, Mr. Reznick, before he could accept the offer of payment by post-dated check." Id. at 20. McKenna then allegedly called Reznick who supposedly instructed him to demand that the post-dated check be in the amount of $400. (As indicated, both McKenna and Reznick deny any participation on Reznick's part and further deny that any telephone call was ever made to him regarding the post-dated check payment of $400 or anything else concerning the execution. See McKenna Dep., p. 236.) Mrs. Rodriguez complied and made out a check dated the next day for $400, and gave it to the men. Id. at 22. McKenna, in turn, gave Adams a Receipt for Execution Against Property indicating the payment of $600-$400 by check and $200 in cash. See Plaintiffs' Ex. P. Ms. Adams also agreed in writing to make additional bi-weekly payments of $150 starting September 19, 2006 until the total Judgment is paid in full. Id.11 McKenna and Patterson then left the house. Id. Later McKenna filled out, signed and subsequently filed with the court an SCAO Partial Payment Receipt form. [See Defendants' Ex. 8.]12" |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:47 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Based upon the foregoing authorities, the Court finds that, as duly-appointed Court Officers of the 71-A District Court, McKenna and Reznick may properly be classified as state actors for purposes of the Section 1983 analysis in this case.
1. ISSUES OF FACT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' SECTION 1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT REZNICK
Defendant Reznick does not argue that he was not a "state actor" but rather that summary judgment should be entered in his favor on Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim because he claims to have had no involvement with the execution of the Order to Seize Property. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Reznick was not present at their home when Defendants McKenna and Patterson executed the Order. However, Plaintiff Adams has submitted a sworn affidavit in which she states that McKenna called "his boss, Rob Reznick" while executing the order to ask whether he could accept a post-dated check and Reznick allegedly "instructed" McKenna to demand a check for $400. See Adams Affidavit, Plaintiffs' Ex. 3, ¶¶ 20-21.
Respondeat superior may provide a basis for liability under Section 1983 if the plaintiff shows "that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it." Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). Although both Defendant Reznick and Defendant McKenna denied in their depositions that any phone call as alleged by Plaintiff Adams was made, the Court cannot resolve such a factual dispute in deciding a summary judgment motion. This factual dispute, coupled with the evidence of some kind of a "business relationship" between Reznick and McKenna, and McKenna's and Patterson's admission that they and Reznick sometimes worked together in executing seizure orders persuade the Court that summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Defendant Reznick would not be appropriate.
2. ASSUMING McKENNA WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OF DPM, THE CORPORATION CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983 FOR HIS ACTIONS
Plaintiffs also seek to hold DPM liable under § 1983 for the actions of Defendant McKenna and his assistant, Defendant Patterson, in executing the Order to Seize Property in this case. Their theory is that McKenna worked for DPM, either as an employee or an independent contractor. The evidence, however, does not bear this out. McKenna's employment — as an independent contractor — was with the 71-A District Court.
Nonetheless, McKenna admittedly had a business relationship with DPM. Assuming, without deciding that this was some sort of "independent contractor" relationship, there is still no legal basis for holding DPM liable under Section 1983 for McKenna's actions. It is well-settled that a corporation cannot be vicariously liable under § 1983 for the acts of an employee or independent contractor. See e.g., Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 818 (6th Cir. 1996); Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co., 678 F.2d. 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982); Rojas v. Alexander's Dep't Store, Inc., 924 F.2d 406 (2nd Cir.1990); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir.1993); Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003); Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 1992); Meinhart v. Campbell, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2008 WL 1860273 (W.D. Ky., Apr. 24, 2008); Auvaa v. City of Taylorsville, 506 F.Supp. 903, 909 (D. Utah 2007). These cases all rely on the Supreme Court's holding in Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Though Monell involved a municipal corporation, as the Sixth Circuit observed in Street, "every circuit to consider the issue has extending the [Monell] holding to private corporations, as well." 102 F.2d at 818 (quoting Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127 1129-30, (11th Cir. 1992).)
It is only where the plaintiffs can show that the corporation directly caused the constitutional violation by instituting an official policy of some nature that was the "direct cause" or "moving force" behind the constitutional violations that a corporation may be held liable for the acts of its employees. See Auvaa, supra, (citing Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-85 (1986) and City of Oklahoma v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 820 (1985).) Plaintiffs here have not even alleged, let alone proven, that DPM has any such official policy. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence suggesting that such a policy was the direct or moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Due Process of Michigan is without merit. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment on this claim will be granted. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:56 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
K. QUESTIONS OF FACT REMAIN AS DEFENDANTS REZNICK'S AND DPM'S LIABILITY ON PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS OF FRAUD AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
The only common law claims alleged by Plaintiffs that arguably have any factual support are their claims for fraud and false imprisonment in Counts VII and IX.
Actionable fraud consists of the following elements: (1) the defendant made a material representation; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the defendant made the representation, the defendant knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff would act upon it; (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damage. Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co., 398 Mich. 330, 336, 247 N.W.2d 813 (1976); Belle Isle Grill Corp v. Detroit, 256 Mich.App. 463, 477; 666 N.W.2d 271 (2003) Fraud, however, must be established by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, and may never be presumed. Foodland Distributors v. Al-Naimi, 220 Mich.App. 453, 457, 459; 559 N.W.2d 379 (1996). Each of these facts must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, and all of them must be found to exist; the absence of any one of them is fatal to a recovery. Hi-Way Motor Co., supra.
Plaintiffs here rely upon Defendants McKenna's and Patterson's alleged misrepresentation that they were "Sheriff's deputies." See Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 81. This, according to Plaintiffs "impl[ied] that they [McKenna and Patterson] were on police business." Id.21 Plaintiffs state that Adams relied upon this allegedly "false and material misrepresentation"22 and let Defendants enter her house, to her detriment. Adams Aff., Plaintiffs' Ex. 3, ¶ 72.
The elements of false imprisonment are (1) an act committed with the intention of confining another, (2) the act directly or indirectly results in such confinement, and (3) the person confined is conscious of his confinement. Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich.App. 618, 627, 689 N.W.2d 506 (2004); Moore v. Detroit, 252 Mich.App. 384, 388; 652 N.W.2d 688 (2002), Brief confinements or restraints, however, are insufficient to establish false imprisonment. Id. at 388. Plaintiffs here claim that Defendants are liable to them for false imprisonment because McKenna and Patterson ordered Plaintiff Adams and her siblings to stay together in the kitchen area of the house until they [Defendants] were through.
Defendants Reznick and Due Process of Michigan argue that they cannot be held liable for Plaintiffs' common law torts because neither Reznick nor DPM executed the writ and did not do anything to control or direct McKenna's and Patterson's actions. However, Plaintiffs have come forward with some evidence — albeit minimal — that suggests otherwise. Plaintiff Adams states in her affidavit that McKenna told her that it was "their [McKenna's and Patterson's] boss, Rob Reznick," who instructed them to get some money from her, Adams Aff., ¶ 8, and when negotiating with McKenna as to payment, McKenna had to first "check with his boss, Rob Reznick, before he could accept the offer of payment by post-dated check." Id. at ¶ 20. Adams further states that McKenna then "called his boss, Mr. Reznick," who instructed McKenna to demand a check for $400 (instead of the $300 amount that McKenna allegedly originally demanded that a check be written for, presumably, before Plaintiff made the "post-dated" check offer.) Id. at ¶ 21. Although both Reznick and McKenna deny that any such phone call was made, the Court cannot decide credibility issues in deciding a motion for summary judgment.
In any event, Adams' affidavit testimony demonstrates that issues of fact remain with respect to the control exercised over McKenna's and Patterson's actions by Defendant Reznick. Reznick owns Due Process of Michigan and both McKenna and Patterson testified that they worked as "independent contractors" for DPM.23 DPM also processes the collections made by McKenna, handling the accounting and payments to the creditors, and the post-execution payments made by the debtors. Reznick's home address and his DPM Post Office address are listed as the addresses for Defendant McKenna on McKenna's Court Officer Agreement with the 71-A District Court. Reznick and his DPM Post Office address are also listed on the "Receipt for Execution Against Property" given to Plaintiff Adams in this case with instructions that post-execution payments on her defaulted judgment were to be made to Reznick at that DPM address. Furthermore, the 71-A District Court court administrator testified that Orders to Seize Property to be executed by McKenna were routinely placed in a mailbox in the courthouse labeled "Due Process" and Defendant Patterson testified that he picks up Orders to Seize Property from the court for McKenna to execute from that "Due Process" labeled box.
Given the evidence showing the intertwining of these process server defendants and because Plaintiffs have produced some evidence suggesting that Defendant Reznick exercised at least some minimal degree of control over the execution conducted by McKenna and Patterson, summary judgment in favor of Reznick and DPM on the basis of no respondeat superior liability would be inappropriate. Therefore, Defendants Reznick and DPM's motion for summary judgment as to Counts VII and IX will be denied. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:59 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated in this Opinion and Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Robert Reznick's and Due Process of Michigan, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 95] is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and all of Plaintiffs' claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED except Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Defendant Reznick in Count I and Plaintiffs' claims of respondeat superior liability against Defendants Reznick and Due Process of Michigan on their state law fraud and false imprisonment claims in Counts VII and IX.
Accordingly, this case will proceed to trial on Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim in Count I against Defendants McKenna, Patterson and Reznick; and Plaintiffs' fraud and false imprisonment claims in Counts VII and IX against Defendants McKenna, Patterson, Reznick and Due Process of Michigan, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This motion is captioned "Plaintiffs' Motion to Advise the Court of Defendant Reznick's Fraudulent and Obstructionist Conduct and Requested [sic] that He Present Himself for Deposition for Matter He Did Not Testify Truthfully About or Concealed and for Discovery of Matters He Testified Untruthfully About and Failed to Disclose." [docketed as a "Motion for Sanctions" at Dkt. # 81].
1. The default judgment was in the principal amount of $9,607.55.
2. Ms. Anthony testified that although she did not fill in any name on the form, she believed that Defendant Reznick would be the person who would be assigned to serve the order because she knew that Reznick frequently worked in Lapeer County and he had told her that "he knew people there." [Anthony Dep., p. 91.]
3. M.C.L. § 600.1801; M.C.R. 3.106(B).
4. The statutory fee has since been increased to $32.00.
5. Gregory Wise, who became the 71-A District Court administrator in June 2007, testified that after he became court administrator, some Court Officers complained that they were not getting their proper share of the work. [Wise Dep., Plaintiff's Ex. L, p. 26.] He said he sensed that the court clerks were taking it upon themselves to decide to whom each writ should be assigned. Therefore, he changed the procedure and testified that he instructed the court clerks that they are to give the list of approved Court Officers to the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs' attorneys and have them tell the court who they wanted to use to execute the orders.
6. Patterson also assisted McKenna when he executed seizure orders as permitted under McKenna's contract with 71-A District Court. Plaintiff's Ex. N, § 6.2. Patterson explained that he worked his day job, as a Schwepps beverages salesperson, and also would assist with writs of execution when he had time in the evening. [Patterson Dep., pp. 18-21.] Patterson also testified that he has also helped Rob Reznick with writs of execution, doing so perhaps once a month. at p. 18.
7. It is unexplained why the Court's "Register of Actions" on the case indicates "Papers to Rob Reznick." Plaintiffs' Ex. 6. McKenna surmises that he was given the Order simply because he was next in line under the rotation system he believed was used by the Court at the time. Gregory Wise, the current court administrator at the 71-A District Court, testified that the court's only concern was that the Order be served by someone on the list of duly appointed Court Officers and since both Reznick and McKenna were on the list and "grouped"on the list along with another Court Officer, King, under the business name "Due Process of Michigan," there would be no prohibition against McKenna serving the Order, adding that it was, therefore, not uncommon for one of these three officers' names [Reznick, McKenna or King] to appear on the register only to have the Order served by one of the other two. [ Wise Dep., pp. 34-35.] In any event, it is undisputed that Reznick never received the seizure order and did not execute it; McKenna and Patterson did.
8. This is the address given on the 71-A District Court papers as Patricia Adams' residence, and it is undisputed that Ms. Adams was living there at the time. The home, however, was apparently owned by Ms. Adams' mother, Ann Rodriguez. Adams Affidavit, Plaintiffs' Ex. 3, ¶ 3.
9. It is unknown whether either Plaintiff Adams or her mother, Ann Rodriguez, were ever deposed in this case as none of the parties has submitted a copy of, or any excerpt from, any such deposition.
10. This demand was in accordance with the terms of the Order to Seize Property. The Order explicitly provided, in pertinent part:
11. The Receipt for Execution Against Property and future payment agreement was signed by both McKenna and Adams. Pre-printed instructions on this Receipt direct that
12. The receipt also indicates that McKenna collected $600 from plaintiff Adams: $200 in cash, and $400 in the form of a check.
13. Although presumably Defendant Reznick also has a contract with the 71-A District Court, a copy of his contract has not been provided to the Court.
14. Carol Anthony, a former employee of Weber & Olcese, testified that she believed that Robert McKenna "worked under Robert Reznick" but when questioned as to the basis of her belief she was very vague and unable to provide substantiation. [ Anthony Dep., Plaintiffs' Ex. H, pp. 110-111.]
15. CAC and Weber & Olcese are no longer parties to this action. CAC was dismissed from this action by stipulated order on November 19, 2007. Plaintiffs settled with Weber & Olcese on September 17, 2008.
16. By leave of Court, Plaintiffs' filed an Amended Complaint on March 3, 2008 to add two additional defendants, the 71-A District Court and Gladwin County. (A Second Amended Complaint was filed on April 10, 2008 to correct typographical errors.) These two additional defendants, however, were dismissed by stipulated orders on June 24 and September 9, 2008, respectively.
17. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint also contained a Count II alleging a claim of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA") against Defendants CAC and Weber & Olcese, only. However, as neither CAC nor Weber & Olcese are any longer parties in this action, Plaintiffs' Count II claims against them will be dismissed.
18. "[T]aken together these three cases signal to the lower courts that summary judgment can be relied upon more so than in the past to weed out frivolous lawsuits and avoid wasteful trials. . . ." 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, , § 2727.
19. M.C.L. § 445.903 provides as follows:
20. Because the Court finds no legal merit in any of the above-discussed state law claims, Plaintiffs' state law conspiracy claim (Count V) predicated upon the substantively dismissed claims will be dismissed, as well.
21. Plaintiff Adams states in her affidavit that McKenna and Patterson announced that they were "police officers" and "[t]hinking they were police officers on legitimate law enforcement business. . . let them enter the home." Adams Aff., Plaintiffs' Ex. 3, ¶¶ 4, 6.
22. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants "falsely represented that their actions were lawful and that they could remove and confiscate their property to satisfy Adams' debt." This, however, is not a false misrepresentation as the Order to Seize Property authorizes the removal and confiscation of "personal property. . . and money." Therefore, Plaintiffs may not predicate their fraud claim on this representation.
23. Although, as a general rule an employer of an independent contractor is not liable for torts committed by the contractor, , , 714 (1985), where the plaintiff can show that the employer had the right to control the manner and means pursuant to which the independent contractor performed his work, the employer may be held liable for the contractor's acts under a theory. , , 553 (1992). |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:01 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Cases filed in Michigan matching "Robert J. Reznick"
RSS Feed | View as table
Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Victor v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: November 1, 2010 as 2:2010cv14383
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Plaintiff: Brian Victor
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Franklin v. Weber et al
Filed: September 6, 2010 as 2:2010cv13539
Plaintiff: Zena Franklin
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Cagle v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: August 28, 2010 as 5:2010cv13450
Plaintiff: Anthony Cagle
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
v. Weber et al
Filed: July 31, 2010 as 2:2010cv13034
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights
Shanel v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: July 31, 2010 as 2:2010cv13037
Plaintiff: Moore Shanel
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Rozewski v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: July 31, 2010 as 2:2010cv13035
Plaintiff: Tiffany Rozewski
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Redmond v. Weber et al
Filed: April 5, 2010 as 2:2010cv11358
Plaintiff: Martha Redmond
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Hoover v. Weber et al
Filed: March 22, 2010 as 2:2010cv11127
Plaintiff: Robert Hoover
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Bairactaris v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: March 11, 2010 as 5:2010cv10983
Plaintiff: Dean Bairactaris
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, Weber & Olcese, Law Firm of and others
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Toney v. Weber and Olcese, PLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: December 8, 2009 as 2:2009cv14758
Defendant: Due Process of Michigan, Inc, Weber and Olcese, PLC, Michael Olcese and others
Plaintiff: Ann Toney
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
© 2007-2014 Justia :: Company :: Terms |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:05 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Eckhout v. Weber and Olcese, P. L. C. et al
Filed: December 7, 2009 as 2:2009cv14748
Defendant: Weber and Olcese, P. L. C., Michael Olcese, Robert J. Reznick and others
Plaintiff: Kathy Eckhout
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes
Parker v. Weber and Olcese, PLC et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: December 7, 2009 as 2:2009cv14753
Plaintiff: April Parker
Defendant: Weber and Olcese, PLC, Weber and Olcese, PLC, Michael Olcese and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes
Vandeventer v. Weber et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: December 6, 2009 as 2:2009cv14738
Plaintiff: Sandra Vandeventer
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Jeffrey Weber, Michael Olcese and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes
Osmer v. Reznick et al
Filed: July 30, 2009 as 2:2009cv13024
Defendant: Weber and Olcese Law Firm, PLC, Jeffrey Weber, Michael Olcese and others
Plaintiff: Sandy Osmer, Sandy Osmer
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes
Hucul et al v. Reznick et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: February 12, 2009 as 2:2009cv10529
Defendant: Ameritech Publishing, Incorporated, Jeffrey Weber, Michael J Olcese and others
Plaintiff: Diane Rothman, Diane Rothman, Clarence Hucul and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Hucul et al v. Weber et al
Filed: February 11, 2009 as 2:2009cv10509
Plaintiff: Clarence Hucul, Diane Rothman
Defendant: Jeffrey Weber, Michael J. Olcese, James Ameritech Publishing, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Griffin et al v. Reznick We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: January 15, 2008 as 1:2008cv00050
Plaintiff: Lynn B. Griffin, Suanne J. Griffin
Defendant: Robert J. Reznick, Thomas J. Royal, II, Larry Nielson and others
Cause Of Action: Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Western District Court
Type: Torts - Injury > P.I.: Other
Griffin et al v. Reznick et al
Filed: January 14, 2008 as 1:2008cv00040
Plaintiff: Lynn B. Griffin, Suanne J. Griffin
Defendant: Robert J. Reznick, Thomas J. Royal, II, Larry Nielson and others
Cause Of Action: Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Western District Court
Type: Torts - Injury > P.I.: Other
Johnson et al v. Reznick et al
Filed: December 21, 2007 as 2:2007cv15458
Defendant: Michael Olcese, Due Process of Michigan, Incorporated, Weber and Olcese, PLC and others
Plaintiff: Bernard Johnson, Jacqueline Johnson
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other
Rodriguez et al v. Credit Acceptance Corporation et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: June 15, 2007 as 2:2007cv12578
Plaintiff: Ann Rodriguez, Patricia Adams
Defendant: Credit Acceptance Corporation, Weber and Olcese, PLC, Due Process of Michigan, Incorporated and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Other Statutes > Consumer Credit
. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:09 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Abiola v. Genesee, County of et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
Filed: May 4, 2007 as 4:2007cv11962
Plaintiff: Akib Abiola, Akib Abiola
Defendant: Genesee, County of, Robert J. Reznick, Thomas J. Royal, II and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Court: Sixth Circuit > Michigan > Michigan Eastern District Court
Type: Civil Rights > Civil Rights: Other |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:10 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| According to Defendant Robert McKenna, when Lapeer decided to privatize, he and Robert Reznick arranged a meeting with the Lapeer County Chief Judge, the Honorable Nick O. Holowka, whom McKenna and Reznick knew from Judge Holowka's time as a county prosecutor. (At that time, McKenna was a Michigan State Police Trooper and Reznick was a Lapeer County Deputy Sheriff.) They told the Judge that they were interested in applying to be Court Officers and Judge Holowka agreed to appoint them. [McKenna Dep. pp. 72-73.] They each obtained and presented a bond to the Court, signed an "Independent Contractor Agreement for Court Officer," see Plaintiffs' Ex. N, and they were appointed as Court Officers for the 71-A District Court approximately three weeks later. Id. at p. 73. |
|
|
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:18 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
