District Court, N.D. Ohio — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Fischbach v. City of Toledo
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011-06-27 · cited 1×
The case involves John Fischbach, an employee of the City of Toledo terminated in 2006, who sued alleging violations of the FMLA, ADA disability discrimination provisions, and Ohio laws on retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, as well as ongoing issues after reinstatement like a denied promotion and harassment. Following arbitration that reinstated him with back pay, the court addressed the city's summary judgment motion on the remaining federal claims. The court denied summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim but granted it on the ADA and retaliation claims. It reasoned that evidence of a past injury did not show a disability substantially limiting a major life activity, and other claims lacked sufficient support for adverse actions or violations.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Bower v. Johnson & Johnson
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011-06-21 · cited 2×
This case involves a Michigan resident who used the Ortho Evra birth control patch and suffered a pulmonary embolism, bringing product liability and consumer protection claims against the manufacturers in federal court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Michigan law bars most claims against FDA-approved drugs absent evidence of fraud or bribery on the FDA. The court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-warn, negligence, warranty, fraud, and wantonness claims (Counts I-V), holding that the Michigan statute (MCL 600.2946(5)) precludes liability for FDA-approved products where no such fraud finding exists. The court denied summary judgment without prejudice on the Minnesota consumer protection statute claims (Counts VI-VIII), noting that the parties' briefing had not focused on those claims.
torts & liabilityhealthcare
BORYCZ v. Johnson & Johnson
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011-06-21
This case arose from a Michigan resident's use of the Ortho Evra birth control patch, which was prescribed in 2003 and allegedly caused her to suffer a bilateral pulmonary embolism later that year; she sued the manufacturers (Johnson & Johnson entities) asserting eight causes of action including failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, fraud, and violations of Minnesota consumer protection statutes. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. It dismissed Counts I through V under Michigan product liability law because Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2946(5) bars such claims against FDA-approved drugs absent a federal finding of fraud or bribery on the FDA, and the patch had received FDA approval in 2001 without any such finding. The court denied summary judgment without prejudice on Counts VI through VIII, the Minnesota statutory claims, as the parties' briefing had not fully addressed them.
healthcaretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
MORO AIRCRAFT LEASING, INC. v. Keith
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2011-06-09 · cited 4×
The case involved Moro Aircraft Leasing, Inc. suing multiple defendants, including Jon Keith, Phil Walton, and Clarendon Development Holdings, over a 2009 aircraft financing agreement in which Moro transferred $510,000 in collateral to secure a $6 million loan that was never funded and whose collateral was never returned, leading to claims of fraud, conversion, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and related torts. The court granted motions to strike certain filings by Clarendon, dismissed the claims against Walton without prejudice due to lack of personal jurisdiction over him in Ohio, and compelled arbitration of the claims against Keith while staying those proceedings. It found the arbitration clause in the Funding Agreement valid and applicable, rejecting arguments that it was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion without evidence of fraud or coercion specific to the clause itself. The opinion focused on procedural standards for personal jurisdiction and enforcement of arbitration agreements under federal and Ohio law.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
McGee v. Moon
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010-02-23 · cited 1×
In this case, pro se plaintiff Tim McGee sued an Ohio state court judge, multiple law firms, banks, and attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal RICO statute, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, seeking to vacate multiple state-court judgments entered against him in debt-collection actions, obtain a new jury trial, enjoin further collection efforts, and recover damages. The underlying state cases involved credit-card debts owed to Discover Bank, Citibank, HSBC, and MBNA, in which McGee had filed counterclaims that were dismissed and judgments were rendered in the banks’ favor. McGee alleged the judgments were procured by fraud and that the defendants engaged in racketeering through sham debt-collection practices. The court dismissed the federal action, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review or overturn the state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the complaint failed to state viable federal claims.
procedurecivil rightsbusiness & regulatory
Dial v. BEIGHTLER
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010-02-22
The case involved a state prisoner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging constitutional errors including ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition as time-barred under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations after the state conviction became final. The district court sustained the petitioner's objection, finding that the petition was not time-barred because the petitioner's attorney engaged in gross misconduct, such as failing to return the case file and leading to the attorney's permanent disbarment, which justified equitable tolling due to extraordinary circumstances. The court reasoned that this attorney malfeasance fell outside ordinary agency principles binding the petitioner to the attorney's errors, and the petitioner exercised due diligence by filing within a year of the disbarment decision.
criminal lawprocedure