Opinion ID: 222675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This court reviews de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588, 592 (6th Cir. 2009). We also review de novo the district court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment. UAW v. Dana Corp., 278 F.3d 548, 554 (6th Cir. 2002). To avoid usurping the role of the fact-finder, a court deciding a summary judgment issue must accept as true the non-moving party’s evidence and accept all justifiable 7 No. 09-1877, Honeywell, Inc. v. Lutz Roofing Co., Inc. inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Though the parties agree that de novo review is appropriate, they raise varying arguments as to the appropriate level of deference due state court decisions in a diversity case such as this. Lutz argues that, in a diversity case where the state supreme court has not issued a ruling on the matter, we are bound by the decisions of an intermediate state court. Lutz relies primarily on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Birgel v. Board of Commissioners, 125 F.3d 948 (6th Cir. 1997). The court’s ruling in Birgel was premised on the fact that the federal case involved exactly the same parties and issues as a case previously ruled upon by an intermediate state court. Id. at 951-52. In fact, the Birgel court specifically stated that its decision was based on the concept of issue preclusion. Id. at 952. Instead, we agree with Honeywell that the appropriate level of deference due intermediate state court decisions was set out by the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967). As the Court explained: This Court has . . . held that while the decrees of lower state courts should be attributed some weight . . . the decision is not controlling . . . where the highest court of the State has not spoken on the point. . . . [T]his Court [has] further held that an intermediate appellate state court . . . is a datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise. Thus, under some conditions, federal authority may not be bound even by an intermediate state appellate court ruling. Id. at 464-65 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810, 818 (6th Cir. 2010).