Sandra Shank Beckwith

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.

labor & employment

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

labor & employmentfederal power

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves two tenured professors at Xavier University, Miriam Finch and Tara Michels, who sued the university after their termination, alleging age and gender discrimination under the ADEA, Title VII, and Title IX, along with retaliation, breach of contract, and Equal Pay Act violations. The dispute centered on whether their dismissals stemmed from departmental dysfunction and lack of collegiality, as claimed by the university following an ad hoc committee investigation and faculty hearing, or from discriminatory and retaliatory motives related to complaints against their department chair. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as certain other pending motions, concluding that the extensive factual record presented genuine issues of material fact on the discrimination, retaliation, contract, and damages claims that could not be resolved without a trial. The core reasoning was that disputed evidence regarding the investigation process, hearing procedures, performance reviews, and mitigation of damages precluded summary disposition under applicable legal standards.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerns employment termination claims brought by Robert Seil against Keystone Automotive and LKQ after his position was eliminated during the companies' 2007-2008 merger and consolidation. Seil alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and Ohio Civil Rights Act based on his fibrosing mediastinitis diagnosis, plus FMLA interference and retaliation. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the disability claims, holding that Seil was not disabled or regarded as disabled under then-applicable legal standards because his condition did not substantially limit a major life activity and the employer's knowledge did not meet the "regarded as" test. The court denied summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim, finding triable issues of fact on whether the employer's performance and redundancy explanations were pretextual given conflicting testimony and Seil's positive performance review.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves residents of Hooven and Cleves, Ohio, suing Chevron USA, Inc. for personal injuries such as MGUS and other conditions allegedly caused by benzene air emissions from a former Gulf Oil refinery. The plaintiffs used a chain of experts to estimate their cumulative benzene exposure and opine that it was sufficient to cause their illnesses. The court granted Chevron's Daubert motion to exclude the causation opinions of Dr. James Dahlgren because the underlying epidemiological studies did not show statistically significant increased risk at the low exposure levels at issue or match the plaintiffs' claimed exposure patterns. As a result, the court also granted summary judgment to Chevron due to the lack of admissible evidence on causation.

torts & liabilityenvironment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Evans Ob’Saint, who was convicted in Ohio state court of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications after robbing a bank using a threatening note that implied he had a gun. Ob’Saint argued that the convictions violated due process due to insufficient evidence of an operable firearm, as no weapon was recovered and the teller did not observe one. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the petition, and the district court adopted that recommendation after reviewing the state court record. The court held that the evidence, including the note's explicit threats to shoot, was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia standard for a rational trier of fact to find the firearm elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the state court's decision was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based on an unreasonable factual determination.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiffs who prevailed in an ERISA class action against AK Steel's pension plan, alleging violations in the calculation of lump-sum distributions to plan participants. After obtaining a substantial judgment, plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), a common fund percentage award, an incentive award for the class representative, and costs. The court granted fees and costs but denied the other requests, applying the five-factor test from Armistead v. Vernitron Corp. to confirm an award was warranted because plaintiffs conferred a benefit on the class, prevailed on the merits, and the factors supported deterrence and fee shifting. It calculated a reduced lodestar amount of $1,363,561.11 after adjusting requested hours and rates for reasonableness, while finding no settlement fund existed to support an incentive award.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by James D. Sudberry, a state prisoner serving a 15-years-to-life sentence for murder, challenging his conviction on multiple grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue plea negotiations. After earlier proceedings addressed other claims, the court considered whether Ground D of the petition was timely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The magistrate judge's report found that a 2007 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Florida rendered the petition untimely as filed in 2003, that the limitations defense had not been waived, and that equitable tolling did not apply; the district judge overruled the petitioner's objections, adopted the report, and dismissed Ground D with prejudice. The core reasoning centered on the intervening change in circuit and Supreme Court precedent regarding tolling during certiorari periods, combined with the respondent's timely reassertion of the defense after that change. The case was closed following dismissal of the remaining claim.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved Dr. Keith Wilkey, an orthopedic surgeon whose hospital staff privileges were suspended and later revoked by McCullough-Hyde Memorial Hospital following peer review proceedings that examined two of his surgeries, chart documentation practices, and disruptive behavior in the operating room. Wilkey sued attorney Greg Hull and his law firm, who had represented the hospital's Medical Executive Committee during the process, alleging legal malpractice. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It held that Wilkey's claim was barred by Ohio's one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice because he was aware of Hull's involvement and the nature of his alleged injury by November 2004, when he filed a related lawsuit against the hospital, yet did not name Hull until years later.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a plaintiff who received a debt collection lawsuit summons intended for someone else and sued the debt collection law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for alleged violations including failure to provide validation notices and improper service and documentation. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding it failed to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff was not a 'consumer' protected by the FDCPA, civil pleadings are exempt from validation notice requirements, misaddressing a summons does not violate the Act, and other claims lacked merit or were not ripe.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose when plaintiff Norma Lee sued defendant law firm Javitch, Block & Rathbone, a debt collector, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act after the firm obtained a default judgment and garnished Lee's Social Security disability benefits. A jury found the defendant liable, and after partial remittitur the court addressed Lee's motion for attorney fees and costs under both statutes' fee-shifting provisions. The court held that Lee was entitled to recover fees as a prevailing party but reduced the requested lodestar amount for excessive hours on certain tasks such as trial preparation and post-trial motions, applied a modest 1.1 multiplier rather than the requested 1.75, and awarded a total of $125,315.30 in fees plus $2,206.18 in costs while denying the defendant's motion for additional briefing. The reasoning followed the lodestar method and Hensley v. Eckerhart factors under both federal and Ohio law, rejected challenges to standing based on the fee agreement, and found the hours spent responding to the defendant's extensive opposition reasonable given the circumstances.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this patent infringement case, Bradford Company sued conTeyor Multibag System N.V. and other defendants, alleging that they made, used, or sold products infringing Bradford's patents on collapsible shipping racks. After settling claims against some defendants and completing discovery on jurisdictional issues, the court addressed conTeyor Multibag's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, concluding that Bradford had not shown that conTeyor Multibag consented to jurisdiction via forum selection clauses, that it had continuous and systematic contacts with Ohio, or that jurisdiction could be exercised based on its relationship with its subsidiary under agency, alter ego, or similar theories. The court applied Federal Circuit law on personal jurisdiction in patent cases and determined that neither Ohio's long-arm statute nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) provided a basis for jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Michael Long, a UAW Local 674 member elected as Bargaining Chair, who was recalled by a membership vote after a petition alleging improper grievance handling and other violations. Long pursued internal union appeals under the UAW Constitution, and the International Executive Board (IEB) ruled the recall petition invalid for lacking specificity but declined to reinstate him because he had voluntarily retired from GM during the appeal process. Long then sued the Local and its president under 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5) for due process violations, plus state claims for tortious interference with contract and breach of the union constitution and bylaws, seeking damages. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that union interpretations of their governing documents are entitled to deference unless patently unreasonable, that the IEB's handling of the appeal and denial of relief was fair and reasonable, and that Long's voluntary retirement and lack of evidence of malice or unfairness defeated his claims.

labor & employment

The case involves a patent infringement suit by Bradford Company against conTeyor regarding reusable shipping containers with dunnage structures. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no literal infringement of the specified claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,230,916 and 6,540,096. The reasoning was that the accused product's dunnage is connected to rails or bars, not directly to the frame or side structures as required by the patent claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a lawsuit brought by plaintiff Norma Lee against debt collection law firm Javitch, Block & Rathbone (JB&R), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the firm's efforts to collect on a defaulted credit card debt purchased by Midland Funding, including sending validation notices, making collection calls, and preparing garnishment affidavits without sufficient prior investigation. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment on the FDCPA claims, and the plaintiff also moved for class certification of similarly situated debtors. The court denied the summary judgment motions from both parties, concluding that material factual disputes existed regarding whether JB&R's collection methods satisfied the statute's requirements. It further denied class certification, reasoning that individualized determinations of the information available to the firm in each debtor's file would predominate over any common legal issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Victoria Gaskins sued her former employer, Thousand Trails, for violations of the FLSA regarding unpaid overtime, as well as gender and age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and related Ohio statutes, plus a claim for violation of Ohio public policy. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that judicial estoppel barred the claims because Gaskins had not disclosed them as assets in her earlier Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA, discrimination, harassment, and related public policy claims with prejudice on the ground that those claims had accrued before the bankruptcy petition was filed and should have been listed on the schedule of assets. The court denied the motion as to the retaliation claims and the public policy claim based on retaliation, reasoning that the factual basis for those claims did not arise until after the bankruptcy estate was closed, so there was no inconsistent position to estop. The court also rejected an alternative estoppel argument based on undisclosed disc jockeying income as moot or inapplicable to the surviving claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights