David A. Katz

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved claims by the Toledo Fair Housing Corporation and an individual African-American homeowner that an insurance company's use of market value-to-replacement cost ratios in underwriting homeowners policies violated the Fair Housing Act through both disparate impact on minority neighborhoods and disparate treatment. The policies limited coverage options and amounts for homes where market value was significantly below replacement cost, a situation more common in low-income areas. The court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation along with extensive briefing and ultimately granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full while striking certain expert rebuttal reports and portions of a declaration. The decision followed from the conclusion that the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish liability under the FHA on either theory after applying the applicable legal standards.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In Boroff v. Alza Corp., the plaintiff sued pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that her husband's death resulted from a defective Duragesic fentanyl patch, claiming manufacturing defects, design defects, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and negligence per se. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing without prejudice the manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and negligence per se claims, while denying dismissal as to the remaining claims and granting the plaintiff 45 days to file an amended complaint. The decision rested on federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal requiring plausible factual allegations, the Ohio Product Liability Act's preemption of certain common-law claims, and Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement for fraud allegations, which the complaint failed to meet in its current form.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a borrower who sued his lender after his construction loan converted to a permanent mortgage, claiming violations of the Truth in Lending Act, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and that the loan terms constituted an unenforceable penalty. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant lender. It reasoned that the loan documents clearly permitted the lender to charge interest on the full principal amount upon construction delays, that the borrower could not reasonably rely on oral statements contradicting the written terms, and that the borrower failed to show any violation or that the terms were a penalty under Ohio law.

business & regulatory

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Nasir Muntaser, who was convicted in Ohio state court on charges including murder and aggravated arson after he arranged to burn down a convenience store for insurance proceeds, resulting in one death and injuries to others. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended denying the petition, and the district court adopted that recommendation after conducting a de novo review of Muntaser's objections, which primarily alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court found that counsel's performance was not deficient under Strickland v. Washington, noting that strategic decisions such as handling voir dire and discovery issues were reasonable and did not prejudice the outcome of the trial. It therefore denied relief while granting a certificate of appealability on the issues raised.

criminal lawprocedure

In Alcala v. Whirlpool Corp., a Hispanic former employee sued his employer for constructive discharge, race and national origin discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99 after being passed over for engineering roles in favor of white candidates. The district court granted Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court reasoned that Alcala did not show he was similarly qualified to the successful applicants or had applied for certain positions, that any increased supervision after his complaints did not qualify as an adverse action, and that the evidence was insufficient to create triable issues under the McDonnell Douglas or mixed-motive frameworks.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Van Le challenging his Ohio state court conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery and felonious assault, stemming from a 2003 attack and robbery. Le argued that his maximum and consecutive sentences violated due process and ex post facto principles because they were based on judicial fact-finding under post-Foster resentencing procedures that he claimed were applied retroactively. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which advised denying the petition. The court denied Le's objections, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the petition, holding that the state appellate court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law regarding sentencing and constitutional protections.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Turner v. City of Toledo, plaintiff Betty Turner filed a § 1983 action against Lucas County and three jail officers, alleging deprivation of her decedent's civil rights through excessive force during his detention. The court denied Lucas County's motion for reconsideration of the denial of its motion to dismiss, explaining that counties enjoy no Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal claims under § 1983 even if state law might shield them from suit. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the qualified immunity dismissal of claims against the individual officers, finding no basis to revisit the prior conclusion that the allegations failed to show violation of clearly established law.

civil rightsprocedure

In Slough v. Telb, a former deputy sheriff alleged that colleagues fabricated domestic violence claims against him, leading to a warrantless entry into his home, seizure of his personal weapons, pressure on his wife to file charges or protective orders, and involvement of child services, along with other adverse actions like termination. The court ruled on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings by allowing some claims in Count I to proceed—specifically, unreasonable seizure of property against certain individual defendants and Defendant Telb in his official capacity, and wrongful interference with family relationships against a few defendants—while dismissing all other claims in Count I with prejudice, as well as Counts II through VII entirely, and dismissing several defendants. The decision rested on treating the plaintiff's allegations as true for purposes of the motion and evaluating whether they stated viable federal claims, such as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, resulting in partial survival of only the seizure and family interference allegations.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily lawproperty

This case involved two physicians who sued UMB Bank, the trustee of their ERISA-governed 401(k) plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty for failing to inform them about fraudulent activities by their investment advisor, leading to significant losses in their pension funds. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the bank qualified for ERISA's "safe harbor" defense under section 404(c), as there was no evidence that the bank concealed material non-public information from the plaintiffs, thereby relieving it of liability for the investment losses.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. attempting to collect a credit card debt from Andrea Brent through a lawsuit that included an affidavit asserting details about the debt's validity, amount, delinquency, and interest rate. Brent counterclaimed, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) due to the use of a false affidavit and attempts to collect interest above the legal rate. The court granted partial summary judgment to Brent, finding that the companies violated both the FDCPA and OCSPA by relying on the false affidavit, but determined there were material fact questions regarding the interest rate claims. It denied relief under the FDCPA for declaratory or injunctive remedies but granted such relief under the OCSPA, enjoining the companies from using false affidavits in debt collection. The decision rested on evidence that the affidavit contained inaccurate statements about the debt's status and history.

business & regulatory

The case involves Crystal Dixon, a former associate vice president for human resources at the University of Toledo, who was terminated after publishing an op-ed in the Toledo Free Press expressing views on gay rights that conflicted with university policies. Dixon sued the university and two officials, claiming violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and later added an Equal Pay Act claim alleging she was replaced by a less-qualified male employee paid $40,000 more for substantially similar work. The court denied Dixon's motion to file a second amended complaint and denied as moot the defendants' first motion to dismiss. On the second motion to dismiss, the court allowed the EPA claim to proceed against the university but dismissed it against the individual defendants in their personal capacities, reasoning that public officials sued individually do not qualify as "employers" under the EPA.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech

This case concerns a locomotive engineer's dispute with CSX Transportation and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen over his correct seniority date under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff had previously litigated the same seniority issue in an earlier action that was dismissed as untimely under the six-month statute of limitations for hybrid claims. The court denied a motion to reassign the case and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff's claims remained barred because he knew or should have known of the injury by December 2001, with the limitations period expiring in May 2002. The court further reasoned that a 2007 amendment to the CBA did not revive or create a new timely cause of action for the longstanding seniority dispute.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a minority shareholder's claims against majority owners and related entities for breach of fiduciary duty under Ohio law, alleging improper asset diversions, transfers, exclusion from distributions, and unequal treatment regarding stock redemptions in real estate and waste management businesses. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full. The court reasoned that no genuine issues of material fact existed, as the plaintiff received the same redemption opportunities as other shareholders, failed to present evidence of unlawful exclusions or threats to his interests, and asserted no claims against one defendant entity. Diversity jurisdiction applied, and summary judgment standards required the plaintiff to show triable issues, which he did not.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Grand Trunk Western Railroad v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, a railroad sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Railway Labor Act after a union struck during an NMB-mediated dispute over collective bargaining agreement changes, while the NMB intervened to protect its mediation authority and the union later asserted a cross-claim against the Board. The court addressed the NMB's motions to be dismissed from the case and to dismiss the cross-claim. The court granted both motions, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the cross-claim because the union lacked standing at the time it was filed and the original controversy had become moot.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory