From a front-page news article in the Times about participation by big philanthropic foundations in an effort to assist Detroit through bankruptcy proceedings:
In the fall of 2013, Mariam Noland, the president of the Detroit-based Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, ran into Judge Rosen in a deli near the courthouse. She said she had heard that he was working on the city's bankruptcy case, and offered, somewhat offhandedly, her help. Not long after, Judge Rosen called. He asked her to call foundation leaders and invite them to Detroit for a meeting.
The Times doesn't get into the question of whether it was appropriate for Ms. Noland to approach a judge in a deli to talk about a case in which the judge was involved.
From an article in the N.Y/Region section of the Times from the same day:
The judge also admonished Ms. Misir for what he called her "ex parte communications" with his chambers. Judge Karas said Ms. Misir had called his chambers and had spoken to a law clerk for about 10 minutes about the scheduling of the pretrial conference and expressing criticism of the prosecutors.
Ms. Misir, in her letter on Wednesday, said she had called to resolve multiple scheduling and procedural issues; denied communicating on the "merits" of the case; and said "the frustration" she expressed stemmed from her condition and what she saw as the prosecutors' behavior toward her "at a medically delicate time."
The American Bar Association (here) and the Hawaii State Judiciary (here) have some helpful explanation of what "ex parte communications" are and why ordinarily it's not a good idea for people to go up to judges out of court to discuss cases in which the judges are involved. The Detroit story in the Times would have been stronger with a sentence or two, or a paragraph even, getting into the question of whether that communication in the deli was appropriate under the rules.