Michael T. Berger

Michael T. Berger is a Shareholder in the firm and is one of the firm's appellate specialists and also defends municipalities and their employees in the Trial Courts. Mr. Berger defends cases involving law enforcement, such as cases alleging excessive or deadly force, false arrest, malicious prosecution/wrongful conviction, illegal searches/seizures, and violations of equal protection under the law. He also defends employment matters involving allegations of discrimination, deprivation of the right to free speech, deprivation of the right to freedom of religion, and deprivation of equal protection under the law. Mr. Berger has extensive experience defending general personal injury matters, such as motor vehicle negligence, gross negligence, trip/fall matters, and claims of wrongful death. Mr. Berger also has experience defending alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act.

Mr. Berger began practicing law in 2013 and tried several cases within his first year of practice. He began representing municipal entities and their employees in 2015. Since then, he has successfully obtained a no-cause verdict in his clients’ favor at trial, has obtained summary judgment or disposition in his clients’ favor on many occasions, and has successfully advocated on behalf of his clients in the appellate courts. Mr. Berger joined the firm in 2021 and has taken on a significant role in handling the firm's appellate matters. He has argued many cases in the Michigan Court of Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Berger takes an aggressive approach in defending his clients in the trial court and advocating their positions in the appellate courts.

For example, in a trial court he once filed a motion asking that a Court bar a plaintiff from claiming certain injuries that were not disclosed earlier in litigation. The Trial Court granted that motion, a ruling that was instrumental in settling the matter for a nominal amount, well below the expected cost of an appeal or trial.

He takes this approach in the appellate courts, as well. For instance, Mr. Berger handled a case where a trial court erroneously denied a motion to dismiss the case. Mr. Berger sought leave to appeal the case before trial, asked the Michigan Court of Appeals for immediate consideration, and requested that the Michigan Court of Appeals summarily reverse the trial court's denial of his client's motion. Due to Mr. Berger's extensive and detailed briefing, the Court of Appeals granted his request for immediate consideration and reversed the trial court's decision. Mr. Berger's aggressive appellate tactics were instrumental in his client avoiding an unnecessary and costly trial.

Practice Areas

• Appellate Advocacy
• General Municipal Law
• Constitutional Law and Civil Rights
• Law Enforcement
• Motor Vehicle Negligence
• Trip and Fall
• Employment Law
• Insurance Defense
• Freedom of Information Act
• Open Meetings Act

Education

• Thomas M. Cooley Law School, J.D., 2012
• Michigan State University, B.S., Psychology, with an additional major in Political Science, 2009

Admitted to Practice

• Michigan
• Illinois
• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
• United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
• United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• United States Court of Federal Claims
• The Supreme Court for the United States

Community Service

• Served as an Attorney-Coach for Kalamazoo Central High School’s Mock Trial Team, 2014-2015
• Served as a Volunteer Hockey Coach for Royal Oak Hockey Club's 8U Program, 2023-2024.
• Served as a Volunteer Hockey Coach for the Future Stars Hockey Program, 2024-2026.
• Served as a Volunteer Coach for NFL Flag Football, 2025.
• Serves as Head Coach of the DSC Revolution – White 2018 Travel Hockey Team.

Awards

• Rated as a Rising Star by Michigan Super Lawyers, 2018-2026
• Rated as a Top Lawyer in Litigation by Michigan Top Lawyers, 2016

Publication

• Author of Considerations in Deposing a High-Ranking Official or Opposing the Deposition of a High-Ranking Official, State Bar of Michigan Litigation Journal, Summer 2018
• Co-Editor of the 2025 MMRMA Michigan Governmental Immunity Update
• Co-Editor of the 2026 MMRMA Michigan Governmental Immunity Update

Presentations

• Presenter, Geeez… I Wish I Hadn't Said That, Michigan Township Association Meeting, April 2024
• Co-Presenter, "You're Outta Here!" First Amendment Legal Update: Regulating Speech in Meetings, Public Places, and Online, Michigan Township Association Meeting, April 2025
• Presenter, Navigating the Proprietary Function Exception to Governmental Immunity, Oakland County Bar Association – Municipal Law Committee, March 2026

Notable Trial

Dawson v Irwin, et al, No. 15-13269 (E.D. Mich 2015)

An African-American teenager brought a § 1983 claim, asserting that Mr. Berger's clients, two Caucasian police officers, used unconstitutional deadly force when they shot at his escaping vehicle, hitting him. Mr. Berger and another lawyer tried the case together. Mr. Berger made the defendants' opening statement and examined most of the witnesses at trial. The plaintiff argued that deadly force should not have been used because he was unarmed. Mr. Berger and his co-counsel argued that the escaping vehicle had been used as a weapon against the officers, justifying deadly force. Mr. Berger's clients obtained a no-cause verdict in their favor.

Notable Opinions

Adams v. Skardoutos, No. 369392, 2025 WL 494147 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2025), appeal denied, 26 N.W.3d 809 (Mich. 2025)

• Plaintiff, Robert Brian Thomas Ruee Adams, lived with his mother, Amanda Skardoutos, and his brother in a motel room. One day, Manton Chief of Police, Michael Long, stopped Skardoutos and arrested her on an outstanding warrant. After she was released from custody, she returned back to the motel room with her children and manufactured drugs. Weeks after she returned home, the motel room exploded, because of her manufacturing process, causing Adams to have severe burns over 85% of his body. Adams sued his mother and several other people after the accident, including Chief Long. Plaintiff sued Chief Long on a variety of negligence theories. Mr. Berger successfully argued to the Michigan Court of Appeals that Chief Long was immune from all those theories of liability. He also successfully convinced the Michigan Supreme Court to deny Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to it.

Banks, et al v Charter Township of Bloomfield, Michigan, et al, No. 25-1833, 2026 WL 1147661 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2026)

• Mr. Berger defended the Charter Township of Bloomfield and multiple township officials in a civil rights matter involving Plaintiffs’ real property. The plaintiffs alleged that in 2021 their properties began to flood intermittently due to a broken pipe in an easement running beneath their land. The plaintiffs theorized that the Township violated the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause, violated the Michigan Constitution taking clause, violated Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights, violated Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights, violated the Equal Protection Clause, and engaged in a civil conspiracy by failing to maintain the pipe in-issue. The Sixth Circuit agreed with Mr. Berger that the Township had no duty to repair the pipe because it was not government property. Therefore, all of Plaintiffs’ claims failed.

Bauman v. Millisor, No. 21-1527, 2022 WL 35470 (6th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022)

• Mr. Berger handled an appeal on behalf of several law enforcement officers. In that case, the plaintiff flew from Florida with his children back to Metro-Detroit. Several persons reported that the plaintiff seemed visibly drunk, and Mr. Berger's clients responded to the incident. The plaintiff denied that he was drunk, but the officers saw that the plaintiff's eyes were glassy, that the plaintiff struggled to retrieve his identification, that the plaintiff smelled of alcohol, and the plaintiff refused a preliminary breath test. Mr. Berger argued, and successfully convinced the Sixth Circuit, that his clients had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for disorderly conduct, despite his denials that he was drunk and despite the plaintiff pleading the charge down to double parking.

Crawford v Wood, et al, E.D. Mich. Case No. 23-10229

• The City of Farmington Police Department was investigating an attempted murder and as part of that investigation sought the gun involved in the shooting and the getaway vehicle. Officers canvassed the condo complex where the suspect lived but could not locate the gun or documents associated with the car in the suspect's condo. Officers canvassed the complex for leads to this evidence. Several residents linked the getaway car to the Plaintiff's condo. The officers obtained a search warrant for the condo and executed it. While executing the search warrant, the officers handcuffed the plaintiff. The officers found evidence of criminal activity, but not any related to the attempted murder that they were investigating. Plaintiff was never charged with a crime. Instead, he sued the officers involved in the search alleging they searched his residence using an invalid search warrant, that they used excessive force on the plaintiff while executing the search warrant, that the officers violated the Plaintiff's right to freedom of speech, and that the officers violated the Plaintiff's right to procedural and substantive due process. Mr. Berger successfully demonstrated to the Court that the search warrant was valid and that all the law enforcement techniques, including handcuffing plaintiff during the search, were constitutional. The District Court dismissed the case and entered judgment in the Defendants' favor.

Ennes v. Presque Isle Cnty., Michigan, No. 25-1389, 2026 WL 559860, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026)

• Ethan Ennes, a special education student with cerebral palsy and many other medical conditions, had a violent outburst against his special education teacher and a paraprofessional. A school resources officer, Presque Isle County Sheriff’s Deputy David Schmoldt, responded to the incident. Ethan initially calmed down, but that quickly changed. He threw a pencil box at Deputy Schmoldt and swung to hit him. To subdue Ethan, Deputy Schmoldt, used a controlled law enforcement take-down technique. On the ground, Ethan tried to grab Deputy Schmoldt's taser and gun. Deputy Schmoldt eventually handcuffed Ethan, escorted him to a law enforcement vehicle, and took him to jail. During the twenty-five-minute ride from the school to the Sheriff's Department, Ethan allegedly complained about the handcuffs, but Deputy Schmoldt did not pull over to check them because he was being followed by Ethan’s grandfather, who was known in the community for making threats of violence. Ethan’s grandfather, on Ethan’s behalf, sued Deputy Schmoldt under the following theories: 1) use of excessive force on Ethan, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) handcuffing Ethan in an excessively tight manner, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) arresting Ethan without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (4) assaulting and battering Ethan; and (5) acting with gross negligence. The County was sued under a failure to train or supervise theory. The Sixth Circuit agreed with Mr. Berger that Deputy Schmoldt was entitled to qualified immunity in this instance as to all federal claims and governmental immunity as to the Michigan law claims. The failure to train claim against the County failed because, as Mr. Berger argued, Deputy Schmoldt received annual use-of-force and handcuffing training.

Gibson v. Abate, No. 24-1929, 2025 WL 1913247 (6th Cir. July 11, 2025)

• Ronnie Gibson, Jr. was arrested and taken to the Monroe County Jail. During his booking with Officer Nicholas Abate, Gibson said that he attempted suicide about a year beforehand but denied that he was suicidal at the time of his booking. Afterward, Gibson was taken to a cell that had a corded payphone in it and which was monitored by a security camera. While in that cell, jail employees conducted security checks and monitored the security video. Eventually, Gibson decided to use the phone cord to hang himself. Officers Arin Dunne and David Uhl noticed this on the security camera footage and less than one minute later called for backup. Gibson was removed from the cell and sent for treatment, but he died from his self-inflicted injuries. Gibson's Estate, through its personal representative, Ronnie Gibson, Sr., sued Officers Abate, William Dobson, Uhl, Collan Quinn, Dunne, Charles Galloway, and Katie Caswell, asserting that they were deliberately indifferent to Gibson's serious medical needs, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Estate also sued the County alleging that it was liable for a deprivation of Gibson's rights because it had unconstitutional policies and customs, inadequately trained its officers, and had a custom of tolerance of similar constitutional violations. Mr. Berger successfully argued to the Sixth Circuit that the individual officers that Gibson’s estate sued were entitled to qualified immunity and that the estate failed to plead facts supporting a claim against the County.

Gray v. AutoZoners, LLC, No. 22-1069, 2022 WL 16942609 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2496 (2023)

• Mr. Berger represented an AutoZone store manager in an appeal in a discrimination case. The plaintiff alleged that the manager unlawfully denied him a warranty exchange because of his race. Mr. Berger successfully convinced the Appellate Court that the manager denied the exchange because the evidence presented to the manager indicated that the plaintiff had a problem with his car, not the battery he had exchanged several times. Thus, the Appellate Court found that the plaintiff was not discriminated against.

Green v. City of Southfield, Michigan, 925 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 2019) ("Green I")

• Mr. Berger represented the City of Southfield and three of its police officers in an equal protections and denial of access to the courts § 1983 lawsuit. The plaintiff, an African-American woman, asserted that the defendants treated her disparately during a car accident investigation, in relation to the other driver, a Caucasian man, which led to the denial of her access to the courts to sue that person. The District Court granted summary judgment in Mr. Berger's clients’ favor and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision.

Green v. City of Southfield, Michigan, 759 F. App'x 410 (6th Cir. 2018) ("Green II")

• In a companion case to Green I, Mr. Berger represented a municipality, its City Administrator, its City Attorney, its Chief of Police, its Deputy Chief of Police, and several of its officers, again defending against the allegations that the City and its employees violated the plaintiffs' civil rights in regard to a car accident investigation. Mr. Berger convinced the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that the claim was untimely and was properly dismissed by the trial court. The Sixth Circuit also agreed with him that the plaintiff's complaint did not plead facts that amounted to a constitutional violation.

Herring, et al v. City of Ecorse, et al., No. 24-1916, 2025 WL 2105263 (6th Cir. July 28, 2025)

• Plaintiff-Herring and Plaintiff-Howard were police officers for the City of Ecorse and had a turbulent history with it. In 2018, they both sued the City in Michigan Courts and had their lawsuits dismissed. In 2022, following the dismissal of those actions, Plaintiffs jointly filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against The City of Ecorse, LaMar Tidwell (the Mayor), Michael Moore (the former Director of the Department of Public Safety), and Narda Bruno (the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Safety), alleging that each Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment Rights under the Freedom of Speech Clause and the Freedom of Association Clause. The Plaintiffs alleged they had been retaliated against by the Defendants in the following ways: (1) by Director Moore allegedly sending an email claiming that the Plaintiffs were unfit for duty and homophobic, (2) by Director Moore allegedly making statements to the Detroit News that the plaintiffs were homophobic, (3) by Director Moore allegedly making statements in his own lawsuit that Plaintiffs were homophobic, (4) by requiring the Plaintiffs to undergo a fitness for duty examination, (5) by making a recommendation that the Plaintiffs be placed on a prosecutor’s list of police officers who were known to not be credible witnesses, and (6) by making comments during an internal investigation that the plaintiffs were homophobic. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered a judgment in the Defendants’ favor and Mr. Berger handled the appeal. Based on Mr. Berger’s briefing and arguments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the entry of Judgment in the Defendants’ favor. Mr. Berger successfully argued that the Plaintiffs’ failure to properly brief the email claim, the Detroit News claim, the lawsuit claim, the fitness of duty claim, and the prosecutor’s list claim resulted in the appeal of those issues being forfeited by Plaintiffs. He also successfully argued that the comments allegedly made during the internal investigation did not amount to adverse actions sufficient to violate the First Amendment. For those reasons, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed Judgment in the Defendants’ favor.

Lakes v Allstate Fire and Casualty, et al, 2023 WL 8292674 (Mich. Ct. App. November 30, 2023), application for leave to appeal denied

• The plaintiff was at Wayne Rd and Sims Rd behind another vehicle, at a red light. The light turned green, but the vehicle in front of Plaintiff did not move. At the same time, a City employee drove a truck and trailer on that road toward that intersection. Traffic moved in and out in front of him and once he realized that Plaintiff was at a green light and not moving, he hit the brakes. Despite his efforts, he could not stop in time and rear-ended Plaintiff. Plaintiff declined medical treatment at the scene but later asserted that she suffered a cervical disc herniation and protrusion from the accident. Mr. Berger successfully demonstrated to the Court of Appeals that the changes in Plaintiff's cervical spine were not caused by the accident – they were degenerative. For that reason, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition and ordered that summary disposition be granted in full.

Madbak v City of Farmington Hills, 349 Mich App 561; 28 NW3d 809 (2023)

• Mr. Berger successfully defended the City of Farmington Hills in a trip and fall case. The plaintiff alleged that she walked on a street in a Farmington Hills subdivision and that she tripped and fell in a pothole. As a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against the City, the Governmental Tort Liability Act required her to submit a notice of claim to the City within 120 days of her injury which: (1) specified the location of her fall, (2) specified the alleged defect with the highway, (3) specified her alleged injuries, and (4) identified any witnesses to the incident. MCL 691.1404. The plaintiff submitted a purported notice of claim to the City prior to filing suit. Mr. Berger, however, argued that the purported notice did not provide the City with the required information. In response, the plaintiff argued that she had supplemented her notice within 121 days by sending an email to a third-party claims representative. Mr. Berger argued that the proposed supplement was not only untimely but also was served incorrectly and did not include the required information. The Trial Court agreed with Mr. Berger, as did the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Molloy v. Charter Twp. of DeWitt, No. 369077, 2025 WL 511218, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2025)

• Mr. Berger handled an appeal of the grant of summary disposition in the Charter Township of Dewitt's favor in a Freedom of Information Act matter. The plaintiff had been pulled over by police after several witnesses reported her reckless driving and opined that her driving may kill someone. The plaintiff submitted a FOIA request seeking the relevant police report and indicated that she may file a civil lawsuit against the individuals that reported her. The Township redacted those reporting persons' names and contact information, under the privacy exemption to FOIA. Mr. Berger successfully convinced the Court of Appeals' three-judge panel that the names and contact information of those persons was personal in nature and that the public interest weighed in favor of redacting that information.

Nelson v. Wittkowski, No. 364556, 2024 WL 3283157 (Mich. Ct. App. July 2, 2024)

• In this case, a Grand Rapids Police sergeant drove to a meeting in a City-issued vehicle. He stopped at a red light. When it turned green, he started to make a left-hand turn. At the same time the plaintiff traveled in a crosswalk. The vehicle struck her in the right leg. She sued the Police Department and the Sergeant alleging that the accident caused a bruise on her calf, an LCL sprain in her right knee, and patellar tracking in her right knee. Mr. Berger moved for summary disposition on a number of grounds, a request the Trial Court denied. However, Mr. Berger convinced the Court of Appeals to reverse that decision. He successfully argued that Plaintiff's LCL sprain and patellar tracking were unrelated to the accident. He also convinced the Court of Appeals to find that a plaintiff cannot receive damages under Michigan's No-Fault Act for a bruise. For those reasons, both the police department and the Sergeant were entitled to summary disposition in their favor. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the police Sergeant was also entitled to summary disposition because he did not operate the City's motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner.

Reedy as Next Friend to D.R. v. Huron Sch. Dist., No. 25-1234, 2026 WL 483187(6th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026)

• Oxford Township suffered a terrible tragedy when a high school student brought a handgun to school and killed several students. About a week later, in a different Metro-Detroit school district, D.R. sat in Algebra class when his teacher walked by and thought she heard him say to another student, "If you don't shut up I will shoot this place up like Oxford." Based on what the teacher thought she heard D.R. say, the school district started an investigation into the potential threat and concluded that D.R. made a statement consistent with what the teacher reported, despite D.R.'s contention that the teacher heard him make a joke and took the comment out of context. The school contacted its School Liaison Officer, Keith Nappo, who was involved in the investigation and informed his Lieutenant, Leo Girard (who was not personally involved in the investigation at that time) with several written witness statements. Lt. Girard reviewed them and recommended that D.R. be arrested. Officer Nappo did just that and submitted a warrant request to the Prosecutor's office. The Prosecutor's office approved charges, but D.R. received a "not guilty" verdict in his juvenile proceedings. D.R.'s mother, Allison Reedy, as his Next Friend, filed suit on D.R.'s behalf against Huron Police Department, Lt. Girard, and Chief Everett Robbins under the following theories: (1) Fourth Amendment False Arrest, (2) Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution, (3) State Law Malicious Prosecution, (4) First Amendment Freedom of Speech Retaliation, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Berger convinced the District Court to dismiss all the claims against his clients. Ms. Reedy appealed the dismissal of the false arrest claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but the Sixth Circuit agreed with Mr. Berger that there was probable cause for the arrest, which was fatal to those claims.

Ruggiero v. Shiawassee Cnty. Sheriff's Off., No. 359748, 2022 WL 2288588 (Mich. Ct. App. June 23, 2022)

• Mr. Berger handled a FOIA action in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The plaintiff filed a FOIA with a sheriff's department seeking communications regarding an ongoing internal investigation. The sheriff's department denied the request, claiming they were exempt from disclosure. After the FOIA litigation began, the internal investigation closed, and the sheriff's department disclosed the communications. The Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding whether the sheriff's department properly claimed an exemption. Mr. Berger successfully argued that the communications, despite their later disclosure, were exempt at the time the FOIA request was made, under the law enforcement purposes exception to FOIA.

Shaw v. Ferndale, 6th Cir. Case No. 20-1643

• Mr. Berger represented a municipality and three police officers who responded to an altercation between an Uber driver and his patrons. The Uber driver was African-American, while the patrons were Caucasian. At the scene, the patrons showed the officers a video of the Uber driver approaching one of the patrons holding a phone and showed the Uber driver approaching the woman in a hostile manner, as well as moving his hand toward the phone. The officers reviewed that footage and arrested the Uber driver for assault and battery, but the Uber driver successfully defended the criminal charges against him. The Uber driver filed suit alleging that the officers falsely arrested him, maliciously prosecuted him, committed conspiracy to violate his civil rights, intentionally inflicted emotional distress against him, and were grossly negligent. Mr. Berger convinced the Trial Court and the Sixth Circuit that the officers acted appropriately by arresting the plaintiff and seeking charges against him.

Stallworth v. Champine, No. 16-CV-10696, 2018 WL 690997 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2018)

• Mr. Berger represented a police officer and a municipality against an excessive force claim. Mr. Berger's client responded to a request for assistance from another jurisdiction and when he arrived, he encountered the suspect in the suspect vehicle. He asked that the suspect exit the vehicle and grabbed the suspect's arm and handcuffed him. The suspect accused Mr. Berger's client of using excessive force while grabbing and handcuffing him. Mr. Berger successfully obtained a dismissal of his client by convincing the Court that the extraction did not amount to excessive force and that the suspect did not complain to Mr. Berger's client that the handcuffs were too tight.

Taylor v. Olympia Ent., Inc., Court of Appeals Case No. 346172 application for leave to appeal denied 504 Mich. 947, 931 N.W.2d 349 (2019)

• Mr. Berger represented Olympia Entertainment, Inc. in a trip and fall action. The plaintiff walked from a parking lot to a theater in Downtown Detroit and tripped and fell on an uneven slab of sidewalk. One slab was about 2 inches higher than the other. Mr. Berger moved for summary disposition in the Trial Court, but that Court denied the request. Mr. Berger, recognizing the Trial Court's error, immediately filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with a motion for immediate consideration and a motion for peremptory reversal. The Michigan Court of Appeals granted Mr. Berger's motion for peremptory reversal and ordered that the case be dismissed. Mr. Berger then successfully convinced the Michigan Supreme Court that the matter was not worthy of its review.

Thornsberry v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., No. 342322, 2019 WL 1644946 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2019) application for leave to appeal denied 505 Mich. 974

• Mr. Berger represented Detroit Tigers, Inc. in a premises liability case. The plaintiff asserted that she tripped and fell on a stair that had a rubber runner or expansion joint running down it. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case based on the open and obvious doctrine, despite the lower court judge making statements about his extrajudicial knowledge of the stairs in question, from his visits to Comerica Park. Mr. Berger also convinced the Michigan Supreme Court to deny the plaintiff's request for leave to appeal the matter from the Court of Appeals.

Triple Dippers v. Charter Twp. of Lyon, No. 369860, 2024 WL 4986306 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2024), appeal denied, 25 N.W.3d 342 (Mich. 2025)

• David Jaye submitted 15 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests to the Charter Township of Lyon and the Township responded to those requests with documents it reasonably believed were responsive and indicating that certain documents did not exist. Jaye, dissatisfied with those responses, brought an action under the FOIA alleging that many of the responses were unresponsive. He also alleged the Township provided him with documents despite there truly being no responsive documents. Jaye sued the Township, seeking a certification that no records exist. Jaye also brought a claim asserting that somehow the Township violated the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) by holding public meetings and approving disbursements of funds, including disbursing payment to its Special Legal Counsel. Mr. Berger convinced the Michigan Court of Appeals that the Charter Township of Lyon complied with its obligations under FOIA. The Court of Appeals also agreed that Jaye did not properly present his OMA arguments to it and, therefore, abandoned his claim that the trial court erred when it dismissed the OMA claim. Jaye subsequently requested that the Michigan Supreme Court review the case, but the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Berger that issues presented were not worthy of its review.

Webb v. Detroit Red Wings, Inc, Court of Appeals Case No. 341892

• Mr. Berger represented Detroit Red Wings, Inc. and Olympia Entertainment, Inc. in a negligence action. The plaintiff attended a Detroit Red Wings hockey game and after he exited the hockey arena, two men encountered him and attacked him. The plaintiff alleged that Detroit Red Wings, Inc. and Olympia Entertainment, Inc. had a duty to protect the plaintiff from those two men. On appeal, Mr. Berger filed a motion asking that the Court of Appeals summarily affirm summary disposition in his clients' favor. The Court of Appeals granted Mr. Berger's request, finding that his clients owed the plaintiff no duty at law to protect him from those attackers. More specifically, the Court agreed with Mr. Berger that the question it was asked to review was "so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission."