The case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from an adversary proceeding in which Dayton Title Agency and National City Bank sought to recover over $4.8 million from White Family Companies and Nelson Wenrick, claiming the funds were fraudulent conveyances under Ohio’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and, for NCB, unjust enrichment. The transfers stemmed from short-term bridge loans made through DTA’s trust account to a real estate investor whose repayment checks were dishonored, followed by a large deposit that DTA and NCB alleged was fraudulent. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court’s judgment, holding that certain defenses and evidentiary rulings were properly decided while rejecting others on the merits of the fraudulent-transfer and trust-account claims under state law. The core reasoning applied Ohio precedents on fraudulent transfers, the status of IOLTA/trust accounts, and procedural doctrines such as waiver and estoppel to determine whether the lenders could retain the repayments.
The case involved plaintiffs Susan Clements-Jeffrey and Carlton Smith suing the City of Springfield, two police officers, Absolute Software, and its employee after a stolen school laptop equipped with tracking software led to the interception of the plaintiffs' explicit electronic communications, which were then shared with law enforcement. Plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, and state-law invasion of privacy. The court sustained the Springfield defendants' motion for partial summary judgment while overruling the Absolute defendants' motion for summary judgment, primarily on grounds that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Absolute's actions did not transform it into a state actor for purposes of the federal claims.
The case involved a fair housing organization suing an apartment management company, alleging that its Craigslist rental advertisements violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Ohio law by discouraging families with children and indicating a preference based on sex. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It held that none of the ads were facially discriminatory, as an ordinary reader would not interpret them as expressing an illegal preference or making statements that discourage protected classes when the advertisements are considered in their entirety rather than based solely on headlines or isolated phrases.
This case involves plaintiff Mandy Burghy, an accounting assistant at the Dayton Racquet Club, who was terminated after a credit check revealed adverse information that allegedly disqualified her from her position. Burghy sued her employer and its parent company under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for failing to provide proper disclosures and notices before obtaining her credit report and taking adverse action, along with related state-law claims. The court sustained in part and overruled in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on certain FCRA timing and notice requirements that precluded full dismissal while granting judgment on the conceded negligence claim and other non-viable counts. The core reasoning centered on statutory interpretations of FCRA provisions defining adverse actions, permissible purposes for reports, and the prerequisites for employer compliance, along with undisputed facts about the sequence of meetings and letters.
The case involves a former employee who sued his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for allegedly refusing to promote him, denying raises and bonuses, and terminating him due to his service in the Ohio National Guard and deployment to Iraq. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment by first outlining the procedural standards from cases like Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact on essential elements of the claims. It then analyzed evidence including a vice president's statement that the plaintiff would have received the promotion but for his long deployment, distinguishing this from other precedents, while noting limited evidence on the raises, bonuses, and termination claims. The court ultimately sustained the motion in part and overruled it in part.
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between competitors in the metal beverage can industry, where plaintiffs Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal, Inc. alleged that defendant Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. infringed claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,935,826 and claims 50, 52, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,848,875, both relating to can end geometry and seaming methods that reduce metal usage. The defendant denied infringement and counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. On cross-motions for summary judgment regarding infringement and invalidity, the court sustained the defendant's motion in part and the plaintiffs' cross-motion in part, while overruling other portions as moot, and ultimately entered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. The core reasoning centered on findings that the asserted claims were anticipated by prior art, specifically Japanese patent application JP '323, and rendered obvious under standards from KSR International, with constructions of claim terms like 'first and second circumferentially extending walls' and 'annular reinforcing bead' leading to these conclusions.
