This case involved former Fifth Third Bancorp employees who participated in the company's 401(k) plan and sued the company and individual fiduciaries under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants imprudently continued to offer and hold Fifth Third stock as a plan investment after the company shifted to subprime lending, which exposed the stock to excessive risk, and that they failed to provide accurate information, monitor investments, or address conflicts of interest. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all four counts. It reasoned that the plan was an ESOP entitled to a presumption of prudence in retaining employer stock, that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome that presumption, and that the remaining claims were derivative and therefore also failed as a matter of law.
This case is a securities fraud class action brought by various pension funds and investors against Fifth Third Bancorp and related defendants, alleging material misrepresentations and omissions in registration statements, proxy materials, and other disclosures between October 2007 and June 2008 regarding the bank's lending policies, capital reserves, subprime and Alt-A loan practices, and need for additional capital. The complaint covered multiple subclasses tied to different Fifth Third securities and an acquisition of First Charter Bank. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a surreply, and ruled the remaining motions moot. The core reasoning centered on whether specific statements qualified as actionable misrepresentations under securities laws, the sufficiency of scienter allegations, and the impact of intervening Supreme Court precedent on opinion statements.
The case involved Lawrence Sipple's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 2009 conviction and sentence for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) by failing to register after interstate travel. Sipple had pled guilty based on pre-2006 Ohio sex offense convictions, but following Sixth Circuit rulings in United States v. Cain and United States v. Utesch, he argued that SORNA could not apply retroactively to his conduct because it occurred before the effective date of the compliant SMART regulations in August 2008. The court granted the motion, vacated the conviction and sentence, excused the procedural default on grounds of actual innocence, and dismissed the indictment, holding that the facts to which Sipple pled guilty did not constitute a federal crime at the time alleged and that his plea was therefore not intelligent.
The case involved plaintiff Allison Panetta's claims that her termination as executive vice president of ProProcure U.S. LLC violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, based on comments from company principals about her pregnancy and maternity leave. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that ProProcure's decision stemmed from a legitimate need to reduce executive salaries due to zero revenue and financial viability concerns, with evidence showing that performance goals were retroactively imposed as a pretext to terminate her for cause and avoid a contractual severance obligation of one year's salary, rather than due to her pregnancy.
This case concerned plaintiff Sandra Lawson's application for Social Security disability benefits, alleging impairments from fibromyalgia, arthritis, back injury, and mental health conditions with an onset date in 2000. The ALJ found her not disabled before age 55 but disabled thereafter based on a residual functional capacity assessment for a limited range of light work. The Magistrate Judge recommended reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits prior to that date, concluding that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Lawson's fibromyalgia under Sixth Circuit standards and improperly discounted opinions from her treating physicians on her physical limitations. The recommendation emphasized that the treating physicians' consistent assessments of severe restrictions were not contradicted by substantial evidence and that full-time work capacity was lacking.
The case concerned R&L Carriers' patent infringement claims against multiple defendants offering trucking-related software and services, based on R&L's '078 patent for a method of scanning shipping documents in a vehicle and wirelessly transmitting them to prepare loading manifests before the package leaves the vehicle. The defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the complaints failed to plausibly allege direct infringement by anyone, joint infringement, or the required elements of active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or contributory infringement under § 271(c). The court granted the motions, holding that the allegations—largely based on public product descriptions and made on information and belief—did not meet the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard by sufficiently pleading specific intent, knowledge of the patent, or that the products lacked substantial noninfringing uses. The court dismissed the claims without prejudice and granted R&L leave to amend within twenty days.
