Photo of Robert Hugh Ellis

Robert Hugh Ellis Member

Areas of Practice


Bar Admissions

  • Michigan
  • Wisconsin

Court Admissions

  • United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
  • United States District Court, Western District of Michigan
  • United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
  • United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit


University of Wisconsin Law School, J.D., cum laude, Moot Court Board, Law Review

University of Southern California, B.A., magna cum laude

Bob Ellis is a Member in Dykema’s litigation group. Mr. Ellis’s practice focuses on business and commercial litigation in the areas of contract disputes, automotive dealer and supplier disputes, insurance, financial services, residential and commercial real estate, business torts, trade secrets, and recall and warranty cost-recovery matters. 

Mr. Ellis represents some of the nation’s largest companies, including automotive manufacturers, insurance companies, and financial institutions. 

Mr. Ellis also has experience as in-house counsel, having spent most of a year seconded to a national consumer financial services company, at which he coordinated the defense of a nationwide litigation docket and supervised outside counsel in multiple jurisdictions.


Mr. Ellis has achieved successful outcomes in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels, as well as before administrative officers and private arbitrators, and has experience including the following:

  • Commercial litigation and arbitration, including litigating several arbitrations through evidentiary hearings to successful awards;
  • Fraud, tortious interference, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and other business torts;
  • Automotive dealer protests and disputes;
  • Insurance liability and priority disputes, and defense of insurance company special investigations units;
  • Consumer finance litigation, including suits arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, Regulation X, Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, and Servicers Licensing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Michigan Consumer Protection Act, as well as other related consumer finance claims; and
  • Real estate matters including condemnation disputes, residential and commercial mortgage and construction litigation, title/lien priority disputes, contested judicial foreclosures, and other lending disputes.

Brooks Automotive Group, Inc. v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00798 (W.D. Pa. 2020):  Summary judgment order holding an auto manufacturer’s statutory clock to respond to a dealer’s proposed sale of a dealership does not begin to run until the manufacturer receives all of the documents and information requested from both the seller and the proposed buyer, and dismissing the selling dealer’s claim for over $800,000 in operating losses due to the lack of any evidence of proximate cause.

Marks One Car Rental, Inc., et al. v Farmers Insurance Exchange, et. al, No. 13-14610 (E.D. Mich. 2018): Summary judgment disposing of claims for tortious interference with contract, defamation, racial discrimination, and alleged damages in excess of $13.8 million. Summary judgment affirmed on appeal (No. 18-1386, 6th Cir. 2019).

Ally Bank v. Lenox Financial Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-2387 (D. Minn. 2018): Obtained $1.987 million judgment in favor of purchaser in a correspondent lending arrangement.

Kassem v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 704 Fed. App’x 429 (6th Cir. 2017): Summary judgment disposing of challenges to the enforceability of a $1.12 million residential mortgage loan. Appellate ruling confirmed that mortgagors lack contractual standing to challenge recorded assignments of mortgage absent legitimate concerns of double recovery.

Universal Settlements Int’l, Inc. v. National Viatical, Inc., 568 Fed. App’x. 398 (6th Cir. 2014): Appellate ruling enforcing $5 million pocket consent judgment as appropriate settlement mechanism, and not an unenforceable penalty. 

Nahabedian v. OneWest Bank, FSB, No. 13–1584, (6th Cir. 2014) (appellate ruling holding that the probate exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction does not divest federal courts of jurisdiction when the subject property is removed from the estate by operation of law). 

Lessl v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 515 Fed. App’x. 467 (6th Cir. 2013) (appellate ruling holding that alleged absence of statutory compliance with foreclosure notice provisions is insufficient to warrant reversal of a sheriff’s sale if the borrower had actual notice of the sale). 

Recognized in Michigan Super Lawyers® as a Rising Star for Business Litigation, Insurance Coverage and Closely Held Business, 2015-2018.