District Court, N.D. Ohio — appointed by Gerald Ford
In Re Ferro Corp. Erisa Litigation
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006-03-21 · cited 19×
This case is an ERISA class action filed by a participant in Ferro Corporation's Savings and Stock Ownership Plan against the company and several officer defendants, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the continued offering of the Ferro Company Stock Fund as an investment option. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants knew or should have known about accounting irregularities and poor performance in key business segments that rendered the fund imprudent, yet failed to take protective actions such as appointing an independent fiduciary. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the defendants' motion to dismiss all counts. The court reasoned that the complaint adequately alleged breaches of the duties of prudence and loyalty, the duty to monitor, and co-fiduciary liability, finding the Moench presumption of prudence for ESOPs did not bar the claims at the pleading stage and that conflicts of interest were sufficiently pled.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory
Lentz v. City of Cleveland
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006-01-18 · cited 10×
In Lentz v. City of Cleveland, a Cleveland police officer sued the city and officials after a 2001 shooting incident involving a stolen vehicle driven by a 12-year-old, claiming race discrimination, retaliation under Title VII and § 1983, invasion of privacy from the release of his personnel file, malicious prosecution, and related state claims. The court addressed a motion for summary judgment on these allegations, which arose from the subsequent internal investigation, criminal charges (one of which was dismissed), departmental discipline, and the timing of an EEOC charge. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding insufficient evidence for some retaliation and discrimination claims while allowing others to proceed, and it deferred ruling on the invasion of privacy claim pending further discovery. The reasoning focused on whether actions like filing charges or reassigning duties constituted materially adverse employment actions, the lack of causal links to protected activities, and immunity under state law.
civil rightslabor & employment
Ayad v. Radio One, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005-07-19
In Ayad v. Radio One, Inc., plaintiffs Brahim Ayad and Michael Watson sued Radio One and related defendants after the company declined to renew their one-year contract to air the radio show "Politically Damned," asserting claims including breach of contract, First Amendment violations, libel/slander, discrimination, and conspiracy. The district court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the federal claims and dismissed the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, remanding the case to Ohio state court. The court reasoned that the First Amendment claim failed because it applies only to government action and no state actor was involved. The discrimination claims lacked merit because the plaintiffs were independent contractors rather than employees and the defendants had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for non-renewal based on negative publicity. Conspiracy allegations were also dismissed as unsupported under federal law.
free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2005-06-02 · cited 4×
The case involved parents of a child with autism challenging whether the Parma City School District provided their son with a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by proposing placement in a public school special education program rather than a private autism-specific school. The district court denied the parents' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the school district's motion, affirming the administrative officers' decisions that the proposed individualized education program was adequate. The court reasoned that the public school program offered appropriate therapies and opportunities for interaction, that music therapy was not necessary for educational benefit based on the evidence, and that due weight should be given to the state administrative findings under the applicable review standards.
civil rights
FE Schumacher Co., Inc. v. United States
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2004-01-23 · cited 3×
The case involved F.E. Schumacher Company challenging IRS-imposed tax penalties for failing to deposit payroll and unemployment taxes electronically through the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) as required by federal tax law for multiple quarters in 1999-2001. The company filed complaints seeking judicial review of collection due process determinations and a refund of penalties totaling over $170,000. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and denied the company's motion, upholding the penalties. The core reasoning was that the penalties were properly assessed under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6302(h) and 6656 because the company did not comply with the mandatory EFTPS requirements and failed to show reasonable cause for using a non-compliant alternative deposit method.
taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
SPX CORP. v. Doe
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2003-02-20 · cited 9×
SPX Corp. sued an anonymous individual (John Doe, using the screen name neutronb) for defamation under Ohio law after the defendant posted two messages on a Yahoo! internet message board accusing the company of accounting fraud, overleveraging, insider selling, and facing an SEC and FBI investigation. The defendant moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing the statements were not actionable as defamation. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the postings, viewed in the context of an open, uncontrolled online message board, constituted subjective opinions rather than verifiable factual assertions and thus could not support a defamation claim under precedents such as Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc. The court noted that the complaint also lacked specific allegations of damages or reliance.
free speechtorts & liability