This case arises from the collapse of OCMC, a telecommunications company, and involves claims by Meridian Financial Advisors against former OCMC President and CEO Joseph Pence and related parties over the transfer of OCMC's Adult Chat and Fat Finger Businesses to entities controlled by former employee Martin Scott Hall. Pence moved for summary judgment on Meridian's claims under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act (including conversion, theft, and computer tampering) as well as tortious interference and unfair competition. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims such as those based on computer tampering for lack of sufficient evidence or overly broad statutory application, and denied it in part, allowing certain conversion, theft, and related claims to proceed where factual disputes existed regarding Pence's role, authorization of the transfers, and potential damages. The decision turned on analysis of evidence from the record, including board actions, officer conduct, and statutory requirements under Indiana law.
business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure
The case was a class action lawsuit by Jon Batchelor challenging the Putnam County Jail's policy of performing visual strip searches on all pretrial detainees during intake without any individualized reasonable suspicion that they were hiding weapons or contraband. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of defendant Sheriff Fenwick on all claims. The court's core reasoning was that the jail's policy and its application to Batchelor were justified under the circumstances, including the nature of his arrest for a felony DUI, his visible intoxication, his prior arrests reflected in jail records, and broader institutional security needs.
This case concerned defendant Tyler Sanders' motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a September 2009 search warrant, along with a request for a Franks hearing. The court held the hearing and granted the motion after finding that the detective's affidavit supporting the warrant omitted material facts and failed to establish probable cause, as it did not sufficiently connect the suspected cocaine dealing to the home at 515 N. College or provide adequate basis to rely on the confidential informant's tip. The court further determined that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because a reasonable officer would not have relied on the affidavit. As a result, the court ordered suppression of the drugs, cash, vehicles, and other items directly obtained from the search.
The case involved Noble Roman's, an Indiana-based franchisor, suing French Baguette, J. Peaceful, and individual defendant Chami over a terminated franchise agreement for a pizza restaurant in Florida, with claims including trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, and defamation per se based on alleged continued use of the Noble Roman's mark and related activities after termination. The court denied Chami's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that his execution of the franchise and confidentiality agreements created sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana. The court granted J. Peaceful's motion to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim, reasoning that J. Peaceful had assigned all rights and responsibilities under the franchise agreement to French Baguette and that the complaint's allegations did not plausibly link J. Peaceful to the post-termination conduct or establish its direct involvement in using the trademark.
This case involves Pulse Engineering, Inc., as successor to GTI Corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage for defense costs and environmental cleanup at a former manufacturing site in Indiana under multiple comprehensive general liability policies issued between 1966 and 1981 by insurers including Travelers, INA, North River, and others. The insurers are incorporated or have principal places of business in states such as Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California, while GTI had operations across several states including Pennsylvania and Indiana. After removal to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the threshold issue of choice of law. The court held that Indiana law governs the dispute, applying the most-significant-relationship test and following the precedent in Standard Fusee Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., because the Indiana site is the risk property at issue, Indiana bears the primary interest in remediation and environmental protection, and the interests of other states are comparatively remote.
This case involved the United States and several states and environmental groups suing Cinergy Corp. and related utilities for violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements at coal-fired power plants in Indiana and Ohio, as well as breaching a 1998 administrative order and Ohio's state implementation plan limits on particulate matter emissions at the Beckjord plant. A prior summary judgment ruling and a jury trial established that Cinergy had performed major modifications on several boiler units at the Wabash River plant without obtaining required permits, resulting in projected increases of 40 tons or more in SO2 and NOx emissions. After a bench trial on remedies, the court ordered Cinergy to shut down the affected Wabash River units by September 30, 2009, pay civil penalties totaling over $1.9 million for the NSR violations plus $687,500 for the particulate matter violations, install continuous emissions monitors, and surrender SO2 emission allowances equivalent to excess emissions from the projects.
