Civil Litigation
Construction Law
Insurance Coverage
No Fault
Third-Party Auto
Premises Liability
Product Liability
Bankruptcy
Employment Litigation
Class/Collective Actions
Appellate Practice
A six year associate, Jason has already successfully represented numerous clients in the circuit and district courts of this State, including posting multiple wins on motions for summary disposition and other motion practice. Jason has also had the unique opportunity of handling one bench trial and assisting in a second trial at this early stage of his career. Jason has authored various briefs to the U.S. Eastern District Court, U.S. Western District Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts of Michigan, as well as to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jason has appeared for oral argument in many of these same Courts.
A significant and growing part of Jason’s practice involves employment litigation, and specifically the representing of individuals in their claims for equal pay, and/or unpaid overtime wages against their past or present employers. These lawsuits often involve class and collective action possibilities. Jason’s practice in this area is not limited to just Michigan. Through association with local counsel, Harvey l Kruse, P.C. is able to, and has, represented persons in such claims in a number of out-of-state jurisdictions.
In Salt v. Bennigan’s, we successfully defended a dramshop action against the Client relative to a head-on collision resulting in death and serious injuries. After setting aside the default entered against our Client, we moved for summary disposition. We argued that the comprehensive discovery did not support the elements of an illegal sale, or consumption. The trial court denied the motion finding an issue of fact existed as to these elements. However, following a series of briefs to the Michigan Court of Appeals and to the Michigan Supreme Court, our request for interlocutory appeal was granted and the decision ultimately reversed.
In Yax v. UPS, the three named plaintiffs, all former UPS workers, filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan in response to having their workers compensation benefits cutoff. The plaintiffs alleged that their former employer and its compensation carrier, our client, had conspired via the mails to deny them compensation benefits in violation of the RICO laws. We successfully defended the client in the trial court, arguing reverse-preemption; “law of the circuit”; failure to show detrimental reliance; and failure to plead with particularity. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to plead detrimental reliance. That decision became final when the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs certiorari.
