STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL ANGELO; ORTHOPEDIC, P.C., et al. - Articles

All Content

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL ANGELO; ORTHOPEDIC, P.C., et al.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Mar 5, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Samuel R. Simkins, AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Matthew P. Allen, MILLER CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Samuel R. Simkins, Shereef H. Akeel, Adam S. Akeel, Hayden Pendergrass, AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Matthew P. Allen, Thomas W. Cranmer, Caroline B. Giordano, MILLER CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Port Huron

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Michael Angelo appeals several district court orders enforcing a settlement agreement he entered into with Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in this action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The district court orders compelled Angelo to solicit the government’s consent to dismiss his claims against State Farm in a separate action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Angelo argues that the district court orders violated the FCA, Sixth Circuit precedent, and his First Amendment rights.

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s orders in full.

Attachments: