CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
QUISI BRYAN,
Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
DAVID BOBBY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
   Nos. 15-3778/3834
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:11-cv-00060—James G. Carr, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2016
Decided and Filed: December 15, 2016
Before: SILER, ROGERS, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Warden David Bobby (“the Warden”) appeals a district court judgment partially granting the petition of Ohio death-row prisoner Quisi Bryan for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bryan cross-appeals the judgment to the extent it denied habeas relief. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BRIDGING COMMUNITIES INC., a Michigan corporation; GAMBLE PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TOP FLITE FINANCIAL INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 15-1572
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:09-cv-14971—Avern Cohn, District Judge.
Argued: July 26, 2016
Decided and Filed: December 15, 2016
Before: GILMAN, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This is the latest in a string of “junk fax” cases under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, that involves a faxbroadcasting company named Business to Business Solutions (B2B). Plaintiffs Bridging Communities, Inc. (Bridging Communities) and Gamble Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (Gamble) allege that defendant Top Flite Financial, Inc. (Top Flite) violated the TCPA when it hired B2B to send unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated persons and businesses. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and dismissed their complaints as moot after the plaintiffs chose not to accept offers of individual judgment. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE.