John Michael Manos

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

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

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

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

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. 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

In Fazio v. Lehman Brothers Inc. and related cases, investors sued brokerage firms including Lehman Brothers, SG Cowen, and J.P. Morgan, alleging liability for a former broker who stole assets from their accounts over approximately fifteen years and concealed the theft with false statements. The plaintiffs asserted claims under federal securities laws such as Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as related state-law claims. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings based on arbitration clauses in the account agreements that required disputes arising from account activity to be resolved through arbitration. The court denied the motions, holding that the clauses did not apply because outright theft by the broker was not reasonably foreseeable or contemplated by the parties when the agreements were executed, meaning there was no meeting of the minds on arbitrating such claims and the disputes fell outside the scope of the provisions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Donald and Marilyn Burkholder suing the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration and the Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation to stop the expansion and relocation of a section of U.S. Route 30 between Bucyrus and Ontario, Ohio. The plaintiffs claimed violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Aid Highway Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that a full Environmental Impact Statement was required instead of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact issued by the agencies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the agencies had adequately considered the environmental impacts, alternatives, and public comments in compliance with the relevant statutes, and that no significant impacts warranted a more detailed EIS.

environment

This case involves a dispute between PHD, Inc., a distributor, and Coast Business Credit, a secured lender to the now-bankrupt manufacturer Kent & Spiegel Direct, Inc., over whether PHD could reduce the amount it owed on unpaid invoices for goods by setting off claims for unpaid pre-petition fulfillment services and purchase-order credits. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment and ruled that PHD could set off $828,239.21 for pre-petition fulfillment services but not for post-petition services, while factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the MegaDuster recoupment claim. The core reasoning rested on state-law principles governing setoff against accounts receivable held by a secured creditor, following the bankruptcy court's abstention order that confirmed the issues were governed by state rather than federal bankruptcy law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the executor of Violet Zaccone's estate against the American Red Cross, alleging negligence in supplying blood infected with HIV during a 1984 transfusion, which led to her contracting AIDS and death. The court granted summary judgment to the Red Cross on the negligence claim, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The reasoning was that the Red Cross followed the standard of care in the blood banking profession at the time, which involved donor screening via pamphlets and questionnaires since no HIV antibody test existed until 1985, and other tests were not standard. As a result, the motion regarding the statute of limitations became moot.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In Davis v. Customized Transportation, Inc., plaintiff Raymond Davis, an at-will truck driver, sued his former employer CTI for defamation and termination in violation of public policy, alleging retaliation for refusing to exceed federal on-duty driving hour limits and that customer complaints leading to his discharge were unfounded. Goodyear, a related party, was dismissed early, and the case proceeded in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The court granted CTI's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact on the claims, as the termination report was accurate or privileged and the public policy exception to at-will employment did not apply based on the facts presented. It also denied CTI's motion for sanctions under Rule 11, determining that Davis's filings were not objectively unreasonable.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing American Biodyne, CIGNA, and various healthcare providers after Henry Tolton died, alleging wrongful death, failure to provide proper mental health and substance abuse treatment, violations of EMTALA, insurance bad faith, and related claims stemming from his insurance through his employer. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The reasoning was that ERISA preempted many of the state-law claims related to the employee benefit plan, the EMTALA claims failed because Tolton was not in imminent danger and there was no evidence of patient dumping, and the providers had followed appropriate protocols without negligence in the screening and referrals provided.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In Ditto v. Monsanto Co., Linda Ditto sued Monsanto on behalf of her late husband, alleging that his work servicing electrical transformers exposed him to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) manufactured by Monsanto, causing his acute leukemia and death; the claims included strict products liability for inadequate warnings, negligence, and breach of warranty. After dismissing other defendants, the court considered Monsanto's motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Monsanto, as a bulk supplier of PCB fluids to sophisticated electrical equipment manufacturers, had no duty to warn remote end-users like the decedent because it provided warnings to its direct customers and lacked control over downstream handling or communications. The court further found no evidence supporting causation or breach of any express warranty, and noted that implied warranty claims merged with the strict liability claim, which failed as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityenvironment

This case involved suppliers of perishable agricultural commodities suing under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) to recover trust funds from a railway company, Norfolk and Western Railway (NW), which had received payments from a broker, Freshline, for transportation services. The plaintiffs claimed that the payments were subject to a PACA trust and should be returned. The court granted summary judgment in favor of NW, holding that it could retain the payments. The reasoning was that NW, as an unsecured creditor providing services in the ordinary course of business without actual or constructive knowledge of any breach of the trust, was not required to forfeit the funds under PACA or traditional trust law.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Woodrow Hall suing Harnischfeger Corp. for injuries from a crane it manufactured in 1926, claiming strict liability due to a defective design lacking a warning system. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Ohio's statute of repose barred the claim because the crane was an improvement to real property installed more than ten years earlier. The reasoning was that the crane was permanently attached to the building, enhancing its value, and the manufacturer had custom-designed it rather than supplying a standardized material, thus falling under the statute's protection for designers and constructors of real property improvements.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved a products liability suit by Scott Mowery, who was injured by a boat propeller while riding in a raft on Lake Erie; he claimed that Mercury Marine's drive assembly and Larson Boats' powerboat were defectively designed for lacking a propeller guard and, in the case of the boat, for obstructing the operator's view with its light. The defendants moved to dismiss the propeller guard claims, arguing they were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971. The court granted the motions and dismissed those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the Act's preemption clause, along with its legislative history emphasizing uniform national standards, bars states from imposing non-identical safety requirements on recreational boat equipment, and no federal regulation requires propeller guards.

federal powertorts & liability

The case involved La Placita Partners suing Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and related entities for Arizona state law claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation arising from the 1980 purchase of the La Placita Village office/retail complex in Tucson. The plaintiffs alleged nondisclosure of asbestos-containing fireproofing in the buildings, which they discovered years later while seeking refinancing. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that the sale was an arm's-length transaction with no fiduciary relationship, the buyers had unlimited inspection access and purchased the property "as is," and the seller had no duty to warn about the asbestos.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

Morscott, Inc. applied for a permit to convert a building into an adult bookstore and mini-motion picture theater in an industrial district in Cleveland but was denied under zoning code provisions that bar adult entertainment uses in such areas. The company sued the city for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the zoning rules violated its rights to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Morscott's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court analyzed the zoning provisions as content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations under precedents like Renton v. Playtime Theatres and Young v. American Mini Theatres, requiring the city to demonstrate that the rules served a substantial governmental interest in addressing secondary effects without unreasonably restricting alternative avenues for protected speech. It concluded that Morscott showed a likelihood of success on the merits because the code left insufficient available sites for adult uses.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryproperty

In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sought court enforcement of a subpoena for testimony and documents against National City Bank as part of an investigation into alleged employment discrimination against women, which stemmed from a 1979 charge filed by Cleveland Women Working. The charge overlapped with a prior administrative proceeding by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs that had been settled in 1982 via a conciliation agreement. The district court denied enforcement and dismissed the case, holding that the doctrine of laches barred the EEOC's action. The court reasoned that the EEOC's multi-year delay in pursuing its own investigation—despite access to the OFCCP's extensive files—unreasonably prejudiced the bank by impairing its ability to defend against the claims due to employee turnover and faded memories, while also increasing potential back-pay liability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a terminated public employee, James Loudermill, who claimed that the Cleveland Board of Education violated his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by not providing an adequate pretermination hearing before firing him for dishonesty on his job application regarding a prior felony conviction. After the Supreme Court established the applicable standards and remanded the matter, the district court determined following trial that the meeting between Loudermill and his supervisor satisfied due process requirements. The court reasoned that the supervisor informed Loudermill of the charges, presented the evidence of the felony conviction and false application statement, and gave him several days to respond or provide mitigating information. Since Ohio law provides for post-termination hearings, this pretermination process was sufficient as an initial check against mistaken decisions.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure