John David Holschuh

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

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.

procedureproperty

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).

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

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.

civil rights

The case involved Philip Charvat suing EchoStar Satellite, LLC for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, plus common-law claims of invasion of privacy and nuisance per se, based on thirty telemarketing calls to his home promoting DISH Network services that were placed by several independent retailers authorized to sell EchoStar products. EchoStar moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable because it did not initiate the calls, the retailers acted as independent contractors, and there was no evidence of knowing or intentional misconduct by EchoStar. The court granted summary judgment on all remaining claims, finding no vicarious liability for the retailers' actions and no basis for the tort claims absent intentional conduct by EchoStar.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs Aaron Clark and John Peirano suing defendants including Walt Disney entities and retailers for patent infringement, claiming that Hannah Montana and Cheetah Girls talking posters used their patented technology for posters with concealed sound components housed in a unit that artistically blends with the poster art. Earlier in the proceedings the court dismissed the false designation of origin and deceptive trade practices claims. On summary judgment the court ruled for the defendants on the patent infringement claims, holding that the patent's claim language required the housing to be prepared with matching art substantially the same as the specific poster art it covers, a limitation the accused posters did not meet under the court's construction of claims 1 and 5.

propertyprocedure

William Leak, M.D. and Pain Control Consultants, Inc. sued Lexington Insurance Company and Red Mountain Casualty Insurance Company for a declaration that the insurers must defend and indemnify them in a medical malpractice action filed by patient Karen Baugh-Ross. The court granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment after resolving related discovery disputes. It held that the policies provided no coverage because the plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of the potential claim as required by the contracts. Receipt of the patient's 180-day letters by the doctor's wife, who was an employee and officer of the corporation, was imputed to the plaintiffs under agency principles, starting the notice clock that they missed.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Aaron Clark sued The Walt Disney Company and other defendants, alleging that their manufacturing and sale of Hannah Montana and Cheetah Girls Talking Posters infringed his U.S. Patent No. 5,548,272 for a 'Talking Poster' device, along with claims of false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and deceptive trade practices under Ohio law. Defendants moved to dismiss the non-patent claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and asked the court to take judicial notice of supporting documents. The court granted the motion to dismiss the false designation of origin and deceptive trade practices claims, finding that the allegations failed to state a viable claim because the posters did not create confusion as to the origin of the goods under precedents like Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. The court converted the patent infringement claim into a motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff additional time to supplement the record with evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Tatman, the defendant moved to suppress evidence from four searches of his home that followed a domestic violence call by his estranged wife, during which officers entered the residence with her claimed consent and discovered what appeared to be illegal automatic weapons. The court granted the motion after an evidentiary hearing. It held that the initial entry and subsequent searches were unlawful because the wife lacked common authority to consent, the defendant was present and had not consented, and no other warrant exceptions such as plain view or exigent circumstances applied under the circumstances.

criminal lawguns

Plaintiff Jason Asp filed a class action against Toshiba America Consumer Products alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment, based on a defective DVR that malfunctioned days after purchase and customer service responses directing use of a limited 90-day warranty. The case came before the court on Toshiba's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, with an alternative request under Rule 9(b) for the fraud claim. Applying New Jersey law as acquiesced by the parties, the court granted the motion in part. The decision rested on the express warranty's limitation of all implied warranties to its 90-day duration, the existence of an enforceable contract precluding unjust enrichment, and findings that the NJCFA claim met pleading requirements for particularity regarding knowledge and concealment of the defect.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Philip Charvat sued Echostar Satellite for 307 claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act stemming from 30 alleged illegal telemarketing calls to his home, seeking maximum statutory damages and injunctive relief for multiple violations per call such as failing to honor do-not-call requests. Echostar moved for partial judgment on the pleadings to dismiss 124 of the claims on grounds that they improperly sought multiple recoveries for the same conduct under the two statutes. The court first confirmed diversity jurisdiction over the TCPA claims despite the statute's primary enforcement in state courts. It then addressed the motion by noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(2) permits alternative or hypothetical statements of claims in a single pleading, allowing the multiple counts to proceed if any one is viable. The court therefore declined to dismiss the challenged claims at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Keith Whittle alleging that defendant Ted Cummings, a P&G employee, breached an oral agreement to act as his patent agent for an invention called the TriPad, which included protective sheaths with activatable heating zones, and that P&G infringed his patent with its Thermacare product. The court denied Cummings' motion for summary judgment on the breach of oral agreement claim but granted summary judgment to both defendants on the patent infringement claims. The reasoning was that the issued patent did not include claims for the activatable heating zones, which had been cancelled after USPTO rejection, so there was no literal infringement, and the doctrine of equivalents did not apply because Thermacare and the patented invention were substantially different in form and function.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Plaintiff Kendall Holdings, doing business as PHPK Technologies, sued Eden Cryogenics, its founder Steven Hensley, employee Jim Mitchell, and others, alleging copyright infringement of its product catalog and misappropriation of trade secrets including shop drawings, pricing information, and customer lists in the cryogenics industry. The court considered the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the defendants from using or reproducing these materials. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the trade secrets claim or irreparable harm on either claim, that the requested relief would substantially harm the defendants, and that a restraining order would not substantially advance the public interest; the copyright claim was deemed essentially moot because the defendants had already ceased the allegedly infringing conduct.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a union and its locals suing two creditors, American Capital Strategies (ACS) and LaSalle National Bank, for allegedly interfering with the union's collective bargaining agreement and negotiations over severance pay with their employer, Decorative Surfaces International (DSI), during the employer's financial distress and eventual asset sale leading to plant closure. The district court addressed the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the tortious interference claims under Ohio law. The court granted ACS's motion, finding no evidence that ACS controlled DSI or improperly interfered with the negotiations or agreement. It denied LaSalle's motion, determining that factual questions remained about whether LaSalle's decision to withhold funding for severance pay after the sale constituted unjustified interference under the circumstances.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

Insurance companies filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court against an adult entertainment business and a class action plaintiff, seeking a determination that they had no duty to defend or indemnify the business in a state court lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through the transmission of unsolicited junk faxes. The court evaluated five factors under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction, noting that the case involved unsettled questions of Ohio insurance law regarding coverage for privacy violations, that not all parties from the underlying suit were present, and that a state court forum would be better suited to resolve the issues. Following Sixth Circuit precedent in a similar insurance coverage case, the court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the action without prejudice, making the insurers' summary judgment motion moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this diversity case, plaintiff Larry Becton sued Starbucks for burns he suffered when hot coffee spilled from to-go cups as he exited a store, asserting state-law claims of negligence and products liability. The court denied the defendant's motion in limine to strike most of the plaintiff's affidavit, including statements about the lids coming off and the store manager's comments, but struck the manager's statement that the cups and lids must have been defective. On summary judgment, the court granted the defendant's motion as to the products liability claims, finding insufficient evidence that the product was defective or that Starbucks failed to warn, but denied summary judgment on the negligence claim because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the lids were properly secured and whether Starbucks breached its duty of care. The court also denied both parties' requests for attorney fees and expenses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Norris, the defendant, a former loan officer at Home National Bank, was indicted in October 2006 on charges of misapplying over $444,000 in bank funds through unauthorized lines of credit and loans in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656. Norris moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the multi-year preindictment delay—from the bank's 2001 suspicious activity report through the FBI investigation hampered by post-9/11 resource shifts—violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court held that the delay did not violate due process. It explained that statutes of limitations provide the main safeguard against stale charges, due process offers only limited additional protection, and a defendant must prove both actual prejudice from the delay and that the government intentionally delayed to gain a tactical advantage, neither of which was established here given the legitimate reallocation of FBI resources after September 11, 2001.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death and survivorship action brought by Kelci Stringer on behalf of herself, the estate of her husband Korey Stringer (an NFL player who died from heatstroke during training camp), and a class, against the NFL, NFL Properties, and Riddell (the equipment manufacturer). The plaintiff alleged negligence by the NFL defendants in overseeing practices, providing information on heat-related illness, and approving unsafe equipment, along with products liability claims against Riddell for defective helmet and pad design. Defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the claims were preempted by § 301 of the LMRA because they required interpretation of duties under the NFL collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the motions in part, holding that the negligence claims against the NFL were preempted as the alleged duties and standard of care were inextricably intertwined with CBA provisions on medical care and working conditions.

labor & employmenttorts & liability