The case involved a plaintiff who, following his conviction for disorderly conduct, sued two police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations during his arrest at his home, including claims of unlawful warrantless entry and excessive force. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and arguing that the arrest was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the officers obtained consent to enter the home, whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest, and whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.
Plaintiffs Aaron Clark and John Peirano, owners of a patent for a 'Talking Poster' that plays sound when a button is pressed, sued The Walt Disney Company and other defendants alleging patent infringement, false designation of origin, and deceptive trade practices over similar Hannah Montana and Cheetah Girls posters. Defendants moved for Rule 11 sanctions and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, claiming the suit was frivolous because the accused posters lacked the required camouflage feature on their housing units and involved litigation misconduct such as failing to join a necessary party. The court granted the sanctions motion in part, ordering plaintiffs' counsel to pay $4,905 in fees for not naming co-owner Peirano as a plaintiff, but denied the attorneys' fees motion, concluding the case was not exceptional because it was not brought in subjective bad faith or objectively baseless.
The case was a wrongful death and survivorship action brought by the wife of Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer, who died from heat stroke during the team's 2001 training camp in extreme heat and humidity. Plaintiff alleged that helmets and shoulder pads manufactured by the defendants were defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings about the risk of heat-related illness, contributing to Stringer's death. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning focused on Minnesota products liability standards, examining whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding design defects (such as the need for alternative safer designs) and failure-to-warn claims (including the potential effect of warnings on coaches' and trainers' conduct).
Paulette Rutledge, an African-American woman, sued her former employer Chase Bankcard Services alleging retaliatory discharge under the FMLA after taking medical leave, disability discrimination under the ADA and Ohio law related to her Graves' disease and depression, and race discrimination under Title VII and Ohio law. The case centered on her performance reviews, requests for less stressful positions without customer contact, and eventual termination following a recorded customer call. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, determining that some claims lacked evidence of pretext or qualification while others raised triable issues under the applicable legal standards.
This case involved a former nurse at the Franklin County Sheriff's Office who sued the sheriff in his official and individual capacities, alleging sexual harassment by a deputy, failure to adequately respond to her complaints, retaliation through termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the sheriff's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The core reasoning was that the record showed prompt investigation and orders limiting contact after the reported incidents, with no evidence of deliberate indifference or inadequate response by the sheriff; the termination was based on the plaintiff's own criminal conduct rather than retaliation; and the sheriff's actions did not meet the high thresholds for extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress required for an IIED claim.
The case involved a middle school student, C.V., and her mother suing the school board and principal under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after C.V. was suspended for ten days following an incident of oral sex on a school bus with an older student. The plaintiffs alleged that school officials failed to adequately address subsequent student harassment and that the suspension and other actions constituted retaliation for reporting the events. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on three of the four counts in the amended complaint, finding insufficient evidence to support claims of deliberate indifference to harassment or other violations. However, it denied summary judgment on the Title IX retaliation claim, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the school took adverse actions in response to protected activity.
