Thomas Demetrios Lambros

In Green v. Heidelberg U.S.A., plaintiff William Green sued his former employers, Heidelberg Eastern, Inc. and Heidelberg USA, Inc., alleging wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Green had filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in May 1993, but he and his attorney repeatedly failed to respond to the agency's requests for an interview and information needed to investigate and attempt conciliation. The EEOC dismissed the charge for failure to cooperate in September 1993, after which Green filed his federal complaint in December 1993. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Green's lack of cooperation meant he had not exhausted the required administrative remedies under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the defendants' separate motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved multiple shareholder actions against DWG Corporation and its controller Victor Posner, including class, derivative, and declaratory claims alleging violations of a 1991 consent decree that imposed court-appointed directors and oversight to prevent self-dealing, waste, and asset diversion. The court approved a settlement that transferred control of DWG to the DWG Acquisition Group led by Nelson Peltz and Peter May, resulting in dismissal of the pending claims with prejudice. The core reasoning focused on the practical benefits of the change in control as equivalent to the relief sought, weighed against the costs of continued litigation and the company's deteriorating financial condition that risked bankruptcy and loss of key assets like Arby's and RC Cola.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who operated an auto parts business in Liverpool Township from 1986 to 1989 under a permit but in violation of the township's zoning resolution requiring junk or unlicensed vehicles to be stored in an enclosed building after 15 days. After receiving notice of daily fines for noncompliance, plaintiffs closed the business and sued the township trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inverse condemnation through a regulatory taking and denial of equal protection due to selective enforcement of the ordinance against them but not others. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The inverse condemnation claim was rejected because plaintiffs had not first pursued available state procedures for seeking compensation. The equal protection claim failed for lack of any allegation that the differential treatment was based on race or membership in a protected class.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatory

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor J. Barry McLaughlin challenged the dismissal of his motion claiming the IRS violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 by collecting proceeds from an IRA account after he filed a Chapter 7 petition, seeking damages for the alleged violation. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the IRS did not violate the stay. The core reasoning was that the IRS's pre-petition notice of levy on the cash-equivalent IRA account transferred ownership to the government, extinguishing the debtor's interest so the funds were not part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 and received no stay protection; this differed from precedents involving non-cash assets where actual seizure or surplus potential might preserve debtor rights.

taxesfederal power

The case was a defamation lawsuit brought by a former railway employee against his employer, alleging that supervisors made false statements accusing him of dishonesty as part of a plan to reduce the workforce and avoid paying benefits; the employee had been discharged in 1982 and the discharge was upheld by the Public Law Board in 1983. After the case was removed to federal court and remanded by the Sixth Circuit for a determination of the proper forum, the district court held an evidentiary hearing involving the collective bargaining agreement, hearing transcripts, and related documents. The court decided that the action should be terminated in federal court because the defamation claims are inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act. The core reasoning was that resolving the claims required interpreting the agreement, including the employee's seniority rights, his assertions before the Public Law Board, the board's findings on fraud and termination, and the fact that the statements were made during the board hearing.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves the United States suing Ohio Edison Company under the Clean Water Act for failing to construct a cooling tower by the September 1985 deadline required by its NPDES permit to limit heated water discharges from its Niles, Ohio power plant into the Mahoning River. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the claim for injunctive relief because a superseding 1987 NPDES permit eliminated the cooling tower obligation in favor of a load management program. The court denied summary judgment on the claim for civil penalties, reasoning that the prior permit's terms remained enforceable and that Section 309(d) authorizes penalties for violations even without fault or after permit modifications, with the amount to be determined later based on statutory factors.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a motion for attorney's fees following a prior court order that reversed the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits to the plaintiff under the Social Security Act. The plaintiff sought fees either from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) or from her retroactive benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 406, based on a 25% contingent fee agreement. The court approved a total fee of $4,900 for plaintiff's counsel, finding that the full statutory maximum would constitute a windfall given the hours worked and rates involved, while applying a benchmark from Sixth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez v. Bowen. It further granted $2,006.25 of the fee under EAJA, determining that the government's litigation position was not substantially justified due to its reliance on incomplete medical evidence and failure to object to the magistrate's ruling.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case concerns a shareholder derivative action brought by Granada Investments against DWG Corporation and its directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under Ohio law in Counts One and Two, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in Count Three, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss Count Three under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1, arguing Granada lacked standing because it was not a purchaser or seller of securities as required by the Birnbaum rule from Blue Chip Stamps, and further sought dismissal of all derivative claims for failure to make demand on the board or demonstrate demand futility, as well as dismissal of individual defendants for insufficient service of process. The court analyzed whether the purchaser-seller standing requirement applies to claims for injunctive relief, reviewed precedents allowing or limiting exceptions post-Blue Chip, and considered factors for assessing adequate representation of shareholders along with evidence of board recalcitrance shown in correspondence. The opinion addressed policy concerns from Supreme Court precedent and noted that demand futility was supported by the complaint's allegations of director self-interest and control by Victor Posner.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in which plaintiffs Jonsson, Besam AB, and Besam, Inc. alleged that defendant Stanley Works infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,467,251 (and its continuation, the '912 patent) covering an automatic door-opening system that uses infrared proximity sensors mounted on both sides of a swinging door to detect approaching pedestrians and prevent injury. Stanley counterclaimed for declaratory relief that the patents were invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed, and the consolidated cases proceeded to a motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement. The court granted the motion after reviewing the patent claims, specifications, prosecution history, and the accused Sentrex device, finding no genuine issues of material fact and determining that the defendant's product did not infringe because the patents required specific arrangements of emitters and detectors that the accused device lacked, with prosecution history estoppel barring broader equivalents. The ruling relied on the principle that summary judgment of non-infringement is appropriate when the court can construe the claims and compare them to the accused product without expert assistance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Hoover Group Inc.'s petition under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel consolidation of two pending AAA arbitrations in Cleveland: one with Probala & Associates over unpaid commissions on sales to PPG under a sales representative agreement, and a second with Container Services & Supplies Inc. seeking a declaration that it was entitled to those same commissions. The agreements were identical, contained broad arbitration clauses that neither required nor prohibited consolidation, and involved overlapping facts about the sales and commission allocations. The court granted the petition, ordering the disputes submitted to a single arbitration panel. It reasoned that common questions of law and fact existed across the proceedings, creating a risk of conflicting awards or double liability for Hoover, and that consolidation would not prejudice any party.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a negligence action under diversity jurisdiction in which plaintiff Scott Caldwell, then eight years old, suffered severe burns and the loss of most of his right foot after contacting a sagging 7200-volt uninsulated power line owned by defendant Ohio Power Co. A jury found the defendant negligent, determined that its negligence proximately caused the injuries, and awarded the plaintiff $2.2 million in damages for past and future pain, suffering, disability, and loss of earning capacity, while finding no contributory negligence. The defendant moved for a new trial or amendment of the judgment, arguing that the verdict size and other factors showed it was the product of passion or prejudice rather than the evidence. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence strongly supported both liability and the damage award and that the verdict was not shown to be the result of improper influence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtors who sought to avoid a $3,878.69 judicial lien held by Ford Motor Credit Company on their residence, which was also subject to a $28,000 mortgage and had a fair market value of $32,000. The debtors claimed the lien impaired their $10,000 Ohio homestead exemption under state law, and the bankruptcy court granted their motion to avoid the lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). On appeal, the district court reviewed the facts for clear error and legal issues independently, confirming that the lien was judicial, the debtors held an interest in the property, and the lien impaired an allowable exemption. The court applied Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(1) for the homestead exemption, deferred to state interpretations favoring debtors, and concluded that all statutory requirements for avoidance were met, thereby affirming the bankruptcy court's order.

propertyprocedure

In this bankruptcy appeal, Lumara Foods of America, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor doing business as Arthur Treacher’s Fish & Chips, sued its bank to recover over $813,000 paid on checks that bore one authorized signature and one forgery. The bankruptcy court found that two authorized signatures were required and that the checks were not properly payable, but ruled for the bank after applying the alter ego doctrine to disregard the debtor’s corporate separateness. The court determined that the debtor was part of a group of entities dominated by one individual, severely undercapitalized, and operated interchangeably, so that payment of the checks to related entities within the group caused the debtor no actual loss. The district court affirmed, holding that the alter ego finding was not clearly erroneous and that the doctrine’s equitable test was met because recognizing the corporate form would produce unjust results.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order that initially awarded limited attorneys' fees and trustee compensation in the consolidated estates of Lew H. Thompson and Milew, Inc., but later vacated those awards and required attorney James H. Beck to reimburse the estate. The bankruptcy court found that Beck had an undisclosed actual conflict of interest by representing both the debtor and a secured creditor, and that trustee Thomas L. Corroto performed no services, while also noting excessive fee requests and failure to deposit estate funds in interest-bearing accounts. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, affirmed the denial of all fees and the reimbursement order, and held that the conflict warranted denial of compensation under applicable bankruptcy rules without requiring testimony from a prior judge.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved retirees who filed a class action under ERISA and the Labor Management Relations Act seeking to compel their former employer to reinstate health insurance benefits that had been terminated, along with a permanent injunction against future terminations. The employer voluntarily restored the benefits shortly after the suit was filed, leading the plaintiffs to request attorney's fees and costs under ERISA while the defendant moved to dismiss the action as moot. The court awarded the plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees and costs, finding that the lawsuit was causally related to the reinstatement of benefits, even without a court order, and calculated the award based on hours worked at the firm's customary hourly rate. It dismissed the case as moot due to the absence of a significant threat of future violations, given the employer's stated intent to comply and the short duration of the prior termination, but retained continuing jurisdiction to address any recurring issues.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In this case, plaintiff Morton S. Negin sued the City of Mentor, Ohio, and its Board of Building and Zoning Appeals after they denied him a building permit and zoning variances for a lot he owned, claiming the denial violated his constitutional rights. Negin had previously prevailed in state court, where the Ohio Supreme Court held that the city's ordinance was unconstitutional as applied because it rendered his lot useless without a reasonable relationship to the exercise of police power. In federal district court, Negin moved for partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that the state court ruling collaterally estopped the defendants from relitigating whether his rights were violated. The court agreed, applying the Full Faith and Credit Statute and Ohio collateral estoppel doctrine to find that the prior decision established a due process violation, and it granted partial summary judgment against the city and board on liability while dismissing claims against individual board members on immunity grounds; the case was set to proceed to trial on damages. The ruling relied on the identity of issues between the state proceeding and the federal §1983 claim, including the effective determination of an unconstitutional property deprivation.

propertycivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Local 400, a Teamsters union local that had long represented employees at American Seaway Foods, suing the Joint Council 41 and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters after the organizations transferred representational authority over those employees to Local 507 following a 1979 wildcat strike, member complaints, and a vote favoring the switch. Local 400 sought damages and an injunction, alleging violations of the union constitution's procedural protections for jurisdictional disputes and claiming the actions were ultra vires. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the dispute was between the local and its members rather than a jurisdictional matter under the constitution, as shown by the overwhelming member vote for Local 507, and that the General Executive Board acted within its broad authority to manage union affairs under Article IX, Section 1. The court further noted that the International's ratification of the Joint Council's decision shielded it from liability.

labor & employment

This case involves a dispute between Rocco Wine Distributors, an Ohio wine distributor, and Pleasant Valley Wine Co., a New York wine manufacturer, over the termination of their distributorship arrangement for Great Western wines. Rocco alleged that Pleasant Valley violated the Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act by terminating without proper written notice, just cause, or a written agreement; breached an oral contract; and intentionally interfered with its business relations. The court considered Pleasant Valley's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, which it treated as a summary judgment motion due to matters outside the pleadings. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding compliance with the Act's notice and writing requirements, any resulting injury to Rocco, the terms of any oral agreement, and whether Pleasant Valley's actions in contacting customers or seeking a replacement distributor constituted improper interference.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Samuel Mazza alleging that defendants Paul Kozel, Nicholas Wilson, and Trico Oil, Inc. violated Ohio securities laws by selling him unregistered securities related to oil and gas investments, including joint ventures, leases, and corporate stock. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his Ohio securities claim seeking rescission, while defendants moved to dismiss the RICO count in the amended complaint. The court denied the summary judgment motion due to existing material questions of fact regarding the nature of the transactions and exemptions under Ohio law. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts showing the existence of a separate "enterprise" as required under RICO, rather than just the pattern of racketeering activity.

business & regulatorycriminal law

This case involved a dispute over liability for mechanics' liens arising from a real estate development project financed through mortgage commitments between Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and the defendants. Berks Title Insurance Co., as subrogee to Metropolitan's rights, sought recovery from Fulton & Goss, Roger Haendiges, and Lee Haendiges for amounts paid to settle liens and defend a related state court action, alleging breaches of the financing contracts that allowed encumbrances on the property. The court granted summary judgment to Berks against Roger Haendiges for $113,821.81 covering out-of-pocket lien settlements and attorney fees incurred in the prior suit, while granting summary judgment to Fulton & Goss and Lee Haendiges. It reasoned that the pleadings and affidavits showed no genuine issues of material fact, the commitments required unencumbered title free of prior liens, and Roger Haendiges' breach caused the losses, making him liable for the resulting damages including recoverable fees from the third-party litigation.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure