Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Register
Community Search
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC
Profile Pages More
Firm Members (3)
Groups
Professional Development
Emerging Leaders
Files & Links (10)
Photos
Last updated: 5/28/2015
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC
Law Firm Member
   
Professional Information
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC
3001 W. Big Beaver Road
Suite 600
Troy
Michigan
48084  United States
 [ Map ]
248 822.7800 (Phone)
248 822.7001 (Fax)
Visit Website »
  Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC (“BSP”) is a woman-owned law firm with extensive first chair trial experience representing Fortune 500 companies in high exposure complex litigation matters in over 30 states.

We are unique among law firms in that our partners and associates were educated at some of the best law schools in the country, clerked and interned for high-ranking courts and gained their experience at top-tier law firms before joining BSP. The Honorable Raymond M. Kethledge, one of the firms founding partners, moved on from BSP when he was honored with an appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2008.

Our team’s tireless commitment delivers exceptional litigation results generally associated with larger national firms, while still providing the personal attention and cost efficiency of a smaller firm.
  Cheryl A. Bush has extensive first-chair trial experience and has obtained exceptionally positive results for her clients. She serves as National Counsel for a major automotive manufacturer, handling catastrophic air bag trials and coordinating discovery throughout the country. She has also tried and won cases for numerous other Fortune 500 companies. Her cases, which have spanned 30 states, often involve high-level nationwide media exposure.

Ms. Bush was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers in 2008. She is a board member of the Product Liability Advisory Council and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. Ms. Bush was honored by the National Association of Women Business Owners with the “Breakthrough Award,” which ranked her among the top ten women business owners in Michigan. Ms. Bush is an annual lecturer for the Institute of Continuing Legal Education in the areas of deposition and trial skills.

Community & Pro-Bono Involvement

Ms. Bush assists in all aspects of the firm’s pro-bono efforts. She is a proud sponsor of Cornerstone School’s “Partners for Mentoring Program” and "Be a Tiger for Kids Day," which supports the Cornerstone’s scholarship fund.

Personal

Before co-founding BSP in 2003, Ms. Bush was an equity partner at Dykema Gossett and then Feeney Kellett Wienner & Bush. She graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1984.
Directory Listing Information
 
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC
 
MICHIGAN:Troy
 
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION:
CLASSACTION LITIGATION:
APPELLATE PRACTICE:
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:ADA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:ADA (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Advising on Employee Matters
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Agency Investigations
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Class Actions
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Counseling
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Davis-Bacon Act (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Davis-Bacon Act (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Drafting Employee Handbooks / Policies / Documents
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FLSA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FLSA (non-litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FMLA (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:FMLA (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Internal Investigations
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:OFCCP
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Title VII
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Wage & Hour (litigation)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Wage & Hour (compliance)
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Walsh-Healy Act
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT:Whistle Blowing
INSURANCE:Auto
INSURANCE:Coverage
INSURANCE:Directors and Officers
INSURANCE:ERISA
INSURANCE:Errors and Omissions
INSURANCE:Extra Contractual Liability
INSURANCE:General Liability
INSURANCE:Homeowners
INSURANCE:Life, Health and Disability
INSURANCE:Premises
INSURANCE:Property
INSURANCE:Third Party
LITIGATION:
 
WBE
 
6-10
 
11-20
 
Case 1
Jerry L. Richards et al. v. Del Webb Communities, Inc. et al. (United States District Court, District of Arizona)

Class Action Complaint against Del Webb, bringing a single construction defect claim related to yellow brass plumbing fittings and alleged corrosion. Plaintiff was the sole remaining class action representative; defendant discovered after several years of litigation that plaintiff had sold his house, thereby mooting the class action lawsuit. The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice as moot and awarded attorneys fees to defendant. Won motion to dismiss on mootness grounds and award of attorneys' fees, expert fees and non-taxable expenses for a total of $672,503.18. Plaintiff is appealing the award of attorneys fees in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed opening brief on April 28. BSP is taking lead on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Case 2
Adam Jennings et al. v. DPH-DAS, LLC et al. (Riverside County - Superior Court - Riverside, CA)

Product Liability and Breach of Warranty action arising from a single-vehicle accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that struck a highway barrier at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff alleged defect in design or manufacture. Favorable settlement was reached after Delphi presented the sophistication and robustness of the design of its component, and showed that due to Plaintiff's positioning at the time of impact, non-deployment of the air bag was not a defect. A favorable settlement was reached in September 2013.

Case 3
Nikomi Menchaca v. IEE S.A. et al (Los Angeles County - Superior Court - Hill Street, CA)

Product Liability action arising from a single-vehicle accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that struck a tree and the front passenger air bag did not deploy. Plaintiff alleged defect in design or manufacture. Favorable settlement was reached after IEE S.A. presented the sophistication and robustness of the design of its component, and showed that Plaintiff was not a "must-deploy" occupant. A favorable settlement was reached February 2013.

Case 4
James E. Pleak, II, individually and as Guardian for Maureen Lee, minor Plaintiff, v. Daimler-Chrysler Motors Corporation, Chrysler-Canada, Inc., f/k/a Daimler-Chrysler Canada, Inc., Chrysler LLC, Chrysler Motors, LLC f/k/a Daimler-Chrysler Motors Company, LLC, Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company, Enterprise Leasing Company of Indianapolis, Inc., Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc. f/k/a Enterprise Fleet Services, Inc.

Missouri Product liability action arising from multiple fatality accident in Georgia in vehicle assembled in Canada by Chrysler Canada. Where all plaintiffs resided in Indiana and accident occurred in Georgia, Missouri court could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Canadian entity. BSP Law architected and authored Chrysler Canada's successful motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After further briefing and oral argument by BSP Law, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify the dismissal for interlocutory appeal. Trial court granted Chrysler Canada's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on May 29, 2013. After supplemental briefing and oral argument, on November 4, 2013 the court denied plaintiff's request to certify the dismissal of Chrysler Canada for interlocutory appeal.

Case 5
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Fortis Plastics, LLC d/b/a Fortis Plastics Group (State of MI in the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland)

Fortis Plastics, LLC breached automotive supply contracts with Continental causing damages in excess of $3,200,000. Under the parties' contracts, the dispute was heard by an arbitrator. After a three-day arbitration, the arbitrator awarded Continental $3,900,000 in damages and attorneys' fees. Subsequently, the court confirmed Continental's $3,900,000 arbitration award and entered judgment in favor of Continental. Obtained arbitration award of $3,900,000 in damages and attorneys fees. Judgment was entered in favor of Continental in the amount of $3,900,000 in the Oakland County Circuit Court of Michigan. Post-judgment, Defendant Fortis Plastics entered bankruptcy protection. Collection now proceeds in bankruptcy court.

Case 6
William Beaumont Hospital v. Federal Insurance Company (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)

Appeal arising from an insurance coverage dispute. Before BSP Law joined the case, the district court held that appellant Federal Insurance Company was required to indemnify William Beaumont Hospital for the settlement of an antitrust class action by nurses against Beaumont and other Detroit-area hospitals. On appeal, Federal Insurance Company argued no duty to idemnify Beaumont under the terms of its insurance policy. Indemnification of amount paid in settlement of antitrust claims is not excluded as "disgorgement" or as violation of Michigan public policy. Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco brought BSP Law in to the team for strategic and complex briefing consultation on appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's order that, under the explicit terms of its Policy, Federal Insurance Company must indemnify Beaumont's $9 million settlement of an antitrust claim . (January 16, 2014, rehearing denied February 26, 2014).

Case 7
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. David McCann (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan)

Breach of contract case originating in Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan regarding a breach of contract for McCann's unpaid balance on a Residential Construction Loan Agreement. Judgment entered in U.S. District Court against David McCann on October 16, 2013 in the amount of $212,811.86, including principal, interest, costs and attorneys fees. David McCann filed a Notice of Appeal on December 13, 2013 regarding the judgment entered on October 16, 2013.

Case 8
Timothy Shurtz v. U-Haul Company of Michigan and U-Haul Company of Detroit (Wayne County Circuit Court and Michigan Court of Appeals)

Plaintiff brought a slip-and-fall claim against U-Haul for an accident that allegedly occurred at a U-Haul facility in Detroit. The court granted U-Haul's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to identify the cause of slip-and fall. Where Plaintiff felt and saw no ice at the scene, his causation theory was entirely speculative. Defendant's motion for summary disposition was granted by lower court and affirmed by the State of Michigan Court of Appeals in an opinion issued February 13, 2014. Plaintiff appealed to the State of Michigan Court of Appeals an order granting defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition in Wayne County Circuit Court. Oral Argument was held before the Court of Appeals on February 5, 2014. The Court of Appeals affirmed on February 13, 2014.

Case 9
Ford Motor Company v. United States (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)

Customs denied NAFTA duty-free treatment to goods that Ford imported in the late 1990's. Customs took the position that Ford's failure to file a NAFTA Certificate of Origin barred Ford's claim for a refund of duties paid. The trial court agreed, and granted summary judgment to Customs. On appeal, Ford argued that the position of Customs was directly contrary to Customs’ position for the same types of claims filed through the electronic Reconciliation Program. Whether Customs had failed to offer a "reasonable explanation" for treating NAFTA duty refund claims filed "traditionally" differently from those filed using the Reconciliation Program. Stephanie Douglas from BSP Law architected and authored Ford Motor Company's brief on appeal, and argued the case before the Federal Circuit.

In a published opinion issued May 3, 2013, the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of International Trade's summary disposition dismissing Ford's claims. The dissenting Judge would have rendered judgment in Ford’s favor without further litigation. The majority remanded to Court of International Trade to allow Customs one last chance to defend its inconsistent treatment of Ford's claims. Absent a “reasonable explanation” for its disparate exercise of its waiver powers, Customs must “choose a single consistent interpretation of the statutory language.” On May 3, 2013, the Federal Circuit revived Ford's claims, and remanded to the Court of International Trade for a determination whether Customs can offer a "reasonable explanation" for treating Ford's claims differently. Absent that, Customs must choose a consistent interpretation.

With Grunfeld Desiderio representing Ford, the parties have briefed the issues and are awaiting the Court of International Trade's ruling.
 
Appellate Practice
Labor & Employment Law
 
Illinois
Michigan
New York
 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Southern District of NewYork
U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan
more Calendar

10/6/2016
Trials Practice Area Committee Monthly Call

10/12/2016
Newsletter Committee Meetings

10/12/2016
National Development Committee Monthly Call

10/18/2016
Insurance Practice Area Committee Calls

Featured Members


NAMWOLF
150 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 800
Chicago, IL 60601
312.733.7780

Membership Software Powered by YourMembership.com®  ::  Legal