Thomas McCracken, et al, v. City of Detroit, et al, Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants:

This successful appellate brief led the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims and enabled Plaintiffs to pursue their claims. This appellate brief also led the Court to interpret the applicable Michigan Court Rule to remove the perceived requirement that a plaintiff must reply to a defendant’s affirmative defenses. Therefore, this appellate brief led to an important Michigan law change.

Thomas McCracken, et al, v. City of Detroit, et al, Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants:

This successful appellate reply brief led the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims and enabled Plaintiffs to pursue their claims. This appellate reply brief also led the Court to interpret the applicable Michigan Court Rule to remove the perceived requirement that a plaintiff must reply to a defendant’s affirmative defenses. Therefore, this appellate reply brief led to an important Michigan law change.

Advanced Pharmacy, LLC, et al, v Best Value Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint:

This verified complaint began Plaintiffs’ pending breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, Michigan Limited Liability Act, unjust enrichment, common law conversion, and statutory conversion lawsuit against Defendants. Mediation has narrowed the gap between the parties’ positions. Discovery is proceeding.

R & B Communications, Inc v Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Disposition:

Though not successful, this response presented Plaintiffs’ position in the best possible light for a future appeal. This response also illustrates my advocacy in unfavorable fact or law situations.

R & B Communications, Inc v Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract/Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim:

Though not successful, this response presented Plaintiffs’ position in the best possible light for a future appeal. This response also illustrates my advocacy in unfavorable fact or law situations.

Michael Christy v City of Detroit, et al, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Revised Motion for Summary Disposition:

This successful response and brief led the Court to deny Defendants’ motion and to permit Plaintiff to pursue his Michigan Whistleblower’s Act claim.

Douglas Bayer, et al, v City of Detroit, et al, Plaintiff Fawn Colombatto’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition:

This successful response and brief led the Court to deny Defendants’ motion and to permit Plaintiff Colombatto to pursue her Michigan Whistleblower’s Act claim against Defendants to a fair settlement.

Christopher J. Yatooma, et al, v Michael I. Zousmer, et al, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition, Pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10):

Though not successful, this response presented Plaintiff’s position in the best possible light for a future appeal. This response also illustrates my advocacy in unfavorable fact or law situations.

Kheireddin Hamade, et al, v Sunoco, Inc, Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Though not successful, this appellate brief presents Defendant’s position in the best light possible. This appellate brief illustrates my appellate advocacy in a combined new law and unfavorable fact situation. The Court’s decision has become an influential franchise law decision nationwide. The decision has impacted on appellate and trial court decisions and parties’ briefs nationwide. The decision has generated much law journal comment and controversy.

Kheireddin Hamade, et al, v Sunoco, Inc, Appellate Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Though not successful, this appellate reply brief illustrates my appellate advocacy in a combined new law and unfavorable fact situation. The Court’s decision has become an influential franchise law decision nationwide. The decision has impacted on appellate and trial court decisions and parties’ briefs nationwide. The decision has generated much law journal comment and controversy.

Bonnie Larsen v Budget Wheel’s Auto Sales, Inc, Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal:

This successful application for appeal led the Court to vacate the trial court’s decision deeming Plaintiff’s requests for admissions admitted and to remand to the trial court for application of the correct legal standard.

Chiamp & Associates, PC v Paul W Smith, Appellate Brief of Defendant-Appellant:

This successful appellate brief led the Court to reverse the trial court’s summary disposition order granting Plaintiff a judgment against Defendant and to remand to the trial court for further proceedings. This successful appellate brief enabled Defendant to assert the recoupment defense and thus reduce the judgment against him. This successful appellate brief illustrates my appellate advocacy in addressing complex procedural law.