CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TONY VON CARRUTHERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TONY MAYS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 14-5457
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:08-cv-02425—Jon Phipps McCalla, District Judge.
Argued: June 13, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 3, 2018
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; ROGERS and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Tony Von Carruthers appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A Tennessee jury convicted Carruthers in 1996 of three counts of first-degree, premeditated murder and imposed a death sentence for each of the three murder convictions. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. After the state courts denied Carruthers postconviction relief, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the district court, arguing, among other things, that he was denied counsel at critical stages of the proceedings in violation of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), when the trial court granted his appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered Carruthers to proceed pro se, that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it ordered him to proceed pro se, and that he was not competent to stand trial or to represent himself. The district court denied Carruthers’s petition, and this court granted a certificate of appealability on these three issues. The district court correctly denied relief, because Carruthers has procedurally defaulted his Cronic and competency claims, and the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision that Carruthers forfeited his right to counsel was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: MODERN PLASTICS CORPORATION,
Debtor.
___________________________________________

NEW PRODUCTS CORPORATION; MARK S. DEMOREST,
Appellants,
v.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; 3 OCIR 337, LLC,
Appellees.
   No. 17-2256
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
Nos. 1:15-cv-01026; 1:15-cv-01200—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 09-bk-00651; Adv. Pro. 13-802512—Scott W. Dales, Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 26, 2018
Before: GUY, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. In the course of litigating the adversary proceeding brought by New Products Corporation (NPC) against the Chapter 7 Trustee and his surety, NPC’s Attorney Mark Demorest served five non-parties with subpoenas duces tecum pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016). The ensuing discovery dispute— which included several motions, hearings and orders—resulted in a substantial award of attorney fees and costs to the non-parties, and a subsequent finding of civil contempt for failure to pay that award as ordered. NPC and Demorest appealed, and the district court affirmed in all respects. See New Prods. Corp. v. Dickinson Wright PLLC (In re Modern Plastics Corp.), 577 B.R. 690 (W.D. Mich. 2017). After consideration of the arguments presented here, we also affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP,
Petitioner,
v.
JOANNA DUNCAN, widow of and on behalf of Raymond Duncan; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
   No. 17-3625
On Petition for Review of an order of the Benefits
Review Board, United States Department of Labor.
Nos. 16-0327 BLA; 16-0358 BLA.
Decided and Filed: May 3, 2018
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Raymond Duncan, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, was born in 1947 and was a long-term resident of Middlesboro, Kentucky. He worked in the coal-mining industry for over twenty years and developed severe respiratory issues. Raymond filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, but he died while his claim was still pending. Raymond’s claim was consolidated with a claim for survivor’s benefits submitted by his widow, Joanna Duncan. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) awarded benefits to Joanna, on both Raymond’s behalf and as his surviving spouse. The Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirmed. Zurich American Insurance Group (“Zurich American”), the insurer of Straight Creek Coal Resources, now petitions this court to review the award. For the following reasons, we DENY its petition.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WYSONG CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
APN, INC. (17-1975); BIG HEART PET BRANDS and J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY (17-1977); HILL’S PET NUTRITION, INC. (17-1978); MARS PETCARE US, INC. (17-1979); NESTLÉ PURINA PETCARE COMPANY (17- 1980); WAL-MART STORES, INC. (17-1981),
Defendants-Appellees.
   Nos. 17-1975 /1977 /1978 /1979 /1980 /1981
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Nos. 2:16-cv-11821; 2:16-cv-11823; 2:16-cv-11825; 2:16-cv-11826;
2:16-cv-11827; 2:16-cv-11832—Matthew F. Leitman, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 3, 2018
Before: DAUGHTREY, STRANCH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. This case is about pet-food packaging. One pet-food seller, the Wysong Corporation, claims that six of its competitors have been deceiving consumers. How? Here is an example: [photo]

According to Wysong, this package is misleading. The bag features a photograph of a delicious-looking lamb chop—but Wysong says the kibble inside is actually made from the lessthan-appetizing “trimmings” left over after the premium cuts of lamb are sliced away. The same goes for more than three hundred of the Defendants’ other packages, which feature photos of delectable chicken breasts, T-bone steaks, and salmon filets. Wysong claims that this purportedly deceptive marketing is tricking people into purchasing the Defendants’ products.

The district court dismissed Wysong’s suits for failure to state a claim, and we now review those decisions de novo. Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., Inc., 807 F.3d 785, 792 (6th Cir. 2015). The question is whether Wysong’s complaints contain factual allegations that, when accepted as true, set out plausible claims for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007).