Federal Judiciary

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case concerns a consolidated appeal by Sensations, Inc. et al. (?Sensations?) and Little Red Barn Adult Theatre & Bookstore, Inc. (?Little Red Barn?) (collectively ?Plaintiffs-Appellants?), from the grant of a judgment on the pleadings to the City of Grand Rapids (?Grand Rapids?) and various private citizens and citizens? groups (collectively ?Defendants?). These private citizens and citizens? groups include Michigan Decency Action Council, Inc., Judy Rose, Dar Vander Ark, and Black Hills Citizens for a Better Community (collectively ?Non-City Defendants-Appellees?). Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction against an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses on the ground that the ordinance violated Plaintiffs-Appellants? First Amendment and Due Process rights. The district court denied Plaintiffs-Appellants? motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Defendants? motion for judgment on the pleadings, and awarded attorney fees to Non-City Defendants-Appellees to be paid by Little Red Barn.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald F. Kolpacke appeals the district court?s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claim of wrongful denial of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. Kolpacke alleges that defendants arbitrarily and capriciously denied his claimed benefits by misapplying the relevant pension plan. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants? favor because Kolpacke had failed to show that defendants? had arbitrarily and capriciously applied the terms of the pension plan in calculating Kolpacke?s estimated benefits.

R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Marcia B. Nance appeals the district court?s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (?Goodyear?) on her claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Tennessee Handicap Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act; retaliatory discharge, including violations of the Tennessee ?whistleblower? law; wrongful and constructive discharge through alleged retaliatory conduct; outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Tennessee common law; and breach of a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.