This case involves a pro se plaintiff suing Hamilton County officials, including prosecutors, a public defender, a court reporter, and a jury commissioner, along with other parties, over his 2007 arrest and trials on charges of aggravated menacing and carrying a concealed weapon. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fabricate probable cause, maliciously prosecute him, and cover up errors to slander him, seeking millions in damages including for a lost Nobel Prize. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the county defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice because the plaintiff's vague and conclusory conspiracy allegations failed to show any overt acts causing injury, and it dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
This case involved a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2006 conviction on multiple drug offenses in Ohio state court. The petitioner argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice by denying his last-minute request to substitute privately retained counsel and continue the trial, leading to a no-contest plea and consecutive sentences; he also raised claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and sentencing errors. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the petition with prejudice after finding that the state courts' rulings were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under precedents like United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. The court granted a certificate of appealability on both grounds but upheld the denial based on standards for reviewing state convictions and the effect of the no-contest plea.
Rosy Blue, an international diamond distributor, sued Edmond Lane and Diamond Showroom alleging breach of guaranty, civil conspiracy to defraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation after a buyer introduced by Lane failed to pay over $4 million for diamonds obtained on credit or consignment. The court dismissed the breach of guaranty claim, finding the written guaranty was limited to an initial $905,713 purchase that had been paid in full. It denied dismissal of the remaining claims, concluding they were adequately pled under Ohio law and that judicial estoppel did not bar them because the prior Florida judgment against the buyer resulted from a settlement rather than judicial acceptance of inconsistent positions.
The case arose from disputes over the use of engineering drawings and designs for tissue manufacturing plants, where Spirit Construction Services allegedly provided Jedson Engineering's drawings from prior projects (Cellynne and Lincoln) to Baisch Engineering for a new bid on the Doubletree Project, leading Jedson to assert claims including copyright infringement of the drawings, violations of Ohio's Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract and implied duties of good faith, civil conspiracy, intentional interference, trespass, and removal of copyright management information. The district court addressed nine cross-motions for summary judgment, evaluating issues such as copyright ownership and transfer requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 204, substantial similarity for infringement, access to drawings, and whether facts supported the non-copyright claims. The court denied Baisch's motion for summary judgment on the copyright counts (1-6), finding material factual disputes on ownership and copying, and issued rulings on the remaining motions granting or denying them based on the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact and applicable legal standards.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
The case concerns American Financial Group and its insurance subsidiary seeking a refund of approximately $11 million in federal income taxes paid for taxable years 1996 through 2001, based on the computation of reserves for more than 200,000 individual deferred annuity contracts. Plaintiffs challenged the IRS treatment of reserves for two-tiered annuity products under the federal tax rules of IRC section 807(d), which incorporate the NAIC's Commissioners Annuity Reserve Valuation Method (CARVM), the prevailing state assumed interest rates, and mortality tables, compared to Ohio's statutory reserve requirements. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, along with supporting declarations and oral argument, focusing on the proper valuation of the greatest present value of future guaranteed benefits and related adjustments to reserve amounts.
This case involves Ethicon Endo-Surgery suing Hologic for patent infringement of four patents covering vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices used in its Mammotome system, along with a Lanham Act false advertising claim and willful infringement allegations; Hologic counterclaimed for invalidity of two patents. Hologic moved for summary judgment on non-infringement and related issues. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on claim 1 of the '862 patent under the doctrine of equivalents following a prior Markman order, which also resolved the willful infringement claim on that patent, but denied summary judgment on compliance with the patent marking statute for potential damages on the other patents due to disputed facts about whether additional markings on reusable equipment provided adequate public notice. The matter will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.
