George Curtis Smith

Plaintiff Chyrianne H. Jones, an African-American female sales representative, sued her employer St. Jude Medical and supervisor Michael Moore, alleging race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, wage discrimination, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02 after her termination in 2009. The claims centered on disputes over sales territories, compensation guarantees, performance evaluations, and adverse actions following protected complaints. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It determined that Jones failed to present sufficient evidence establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation or to rebut the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned consolidated challenges by LetOhioVote.org, a ballot-issue committee formed to seek a referendum repealing video lottery terminal provisions in Ohio law, along with its members and related parties, against subpoenas issued by the Ohio Secretary of State as part of a campaign-finance investigation into the committee's funding sources. The subpoenas targeted out-of-state individuals and threatened criminal penalties for noncompliance, following an earlier Ohio Supreme Court ruling that the referendum provisions were valid but denying writs of prohibition against the subpoenas. The federal district court denied the Secretary's motions to dissolve existing state court injunctions in two cases but granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the Secretary in the third case without prejudice.

elections

This case involves consolidated antitrust and related claims brought by plaintiff Craig Williamson, owner of Circle W Mastiffs, against other American Mastiff breeders and the American Mastiff Breeders Council. Williamson alleged that the defendants engaged in price-fixing agreements, group boycotts, and efforts to exclude new entrants and limit breeding stock in the market for American Mastiff puppies and breeding dogs. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the majority of the antitrust counts (including Sherman Act claims) along with several others for failure to adequately plead a relevant market, antitrust injury, or other required elements, while allowing three counts to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns whether Great Seneca Financial Corp. could remain a defendant in lawsuits filed by Deborah Rice and Delores Hartman after the company's voluntary dissolution under Maryland law. Following remand from the Sixth Circuit and denial of certiorari, the court granted Great Seneca's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to be dropped as a party. The ruling rested on the common-law rule, confirmed by Maryland statutes, that a corporation's capacity to sue or be sued terminates upon dissolution once its assets are distributed and its directors' winding-up authority ends, with no exceptions for these civil claims. Plaintiffs did not timely substitute the directors as defendants, so the actions continue only against the remaining defendant, the Javitch firm.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a dispute between coal estate owners and operators American Energy Corporation and Consolidated Land Company, who hold rights to mine coal via longwall methods in Monroe County, Ohio, and pipeline operator Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, whose interstate natural gas pipelines cross the area. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that their superior property rights under pre-1913 severance deeds allow them to mine all coal and subside the surface without liability, requiring the defendant to develop and fund mitigation plans to protect the pipelines. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption under the Natural Gas Act and Pipeline Safety Act, among other grounds. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the claims arise under state property law and are not preempted by federal pipeline regulations, as those laws do not conflict with or displace the relevant Ohio mining and property rights.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Dr. Rudolph Alexander, an African-American tenured professor at Ohio State University's College of Social Work, sued the university, its College of Social Work, and two administrators under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming race discrimination and retaliation tied to his 2006 removal from a program director role, salary decisions, annual raises, and other employment actions after he questioned pay disparities and a proposed student ethics pledge. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Alexander presented no direct evidence of discrimination, failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework for either discrimination or retaliation, and could not show that the university's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual; the court further held that some of his information requests were not protected activity and that certain actions were not materially adverse.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves plaintiff Anthony Allen, an African-American employee at the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, who alleged he faced adverse employment actions including suspensions and termination, as well as retaliation and a hostile work environment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and related state laws, along with claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The reasoning focused on whether Allen established prima facie elements for his discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, including evidence of protected activity, adverse actions, and causal connections, while dismissing some state claims and qualified immunity arguments where facts did not support them.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves several telephony distributors suing Inter-Tel for breach of contract and promissory estoppel after Inter-Tel acquired Executone's assets and distributor agreements in 2000, with plaintiffs alleging misrepresentations about continuing the Executone product line and support while Inter-Tel planned to phase it out. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment, applying the federal summary judgment standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, analyzing the distributor agreements as contracts for goods under the UCC, and addressing issues such as statute of limitations and promissory estoppel elements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Wendy’s franchisees who alleged that the franchisor violated federal antitrust law under 15 U.S.C. § 1 by tying the continued operation of their franchises to the required purchase of hamburger buns from a Wendy’s subsidiary and food supplies from an exclusive distributor, and also brought Ohio breach-of-contract claims. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing the antitrust claims were time-barred and failed to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the four-year limitations period did not begin until the franchise agreements were terminated in 2007, that the complaint plausibly alleged a tying arrangement with market foreclosure, and that supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims was proper. The court therefore allowed the action to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute arising from a 1999 Asset Purchase Agreement in which Scotts sold its Finale non-selective herbicide business to Farnam, including a detailed payment schedule tied to sales performance and provisions for set-offs, warranties, and reductions if Farnam ceased certain activities. Scotts sued for breach of contract and related claims after Farnam took substantial set-offs and reduced or withheld payments, while Farnam counterclaimed for breaches of sales warranties and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Scotts' alleged failure to meet performance benchmarks. The court granted partial summary judgment to Farnam on Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint and on its counterclaim for breach of sales warranties, finding insufficient evidence of Farnam's ongoing obligations or bad faith, but granted summary judgment to Scotts on Count 3 and on Farnam's counterclaim for breach of the implied covenant, based on the plain language of the APA sections governing payments and set-offs. Remaining issues concern unjust enrichment, damages calculations, and the right to additional set-offs.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Thomas Smith, a long-term Columbia Gas employee who had received disability, medical, dental, vision, life insurance, and pension benefits until Aetna terminated his LTD benefits in 2001; a prior court ruling reinstated the LTD benefits, but the company then terminated the related welfare and pension benefits. Smith sued the employer and plans, claiming improper termination of benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and retaliatory discharge. The court granted partial summary judgment to each side, reversing the termination of welfare benefits and pension service credits and ordering their retroactive reinstatement because the plan documents did not condition those benefits on continuous LTD payments in the manner asserted by defendants, while dismissing the fiduciary-duty and retaliation claims.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case concerned whether Ohio's Secretary of State was complying with the Help America Vote Act's requirements for a statewide voter registration database and verification of new registrants against motor vehicle and Social Security records. The Ohio Republican Party and an individual voter sued Secretary Jennifer Brunner, alleging that the state's system failed to perform required matching and that county boards lacked access to mismatch information. After a hearing, the district court granted the plaintiffs' renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found that the state's verification process was not fully operational as required by federal law and ordered the Secretary to implement matching, provide counties with mismatch data or search access by October 17, 2008, and ensure effective review of discrepancies. The ruling was limited to HAVA compliance and did not address other claims or direct how counties should handle identified mismatches.

elections

In this case, plaintiff Deborah Rice sued debt buyer Great Seneca Financial Corporation and its law firm Javitch, Block & Rathbone for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The claims arose from a state court collection action in which the defendants filed a complaint stating an amount due on an account and attached an account statement exhibit. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. It held that the complaint language was not false and the exhibit was not deceptive under the applicable standards, making it unnecessary to reach the defendants' constitutional challenges to the FDCPA.

business & regulatory

This case involved federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by an elderly plaintiff with Alzheimer's disease and his wife against a police officer and the City of Martins Ferry. The claims alleged excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, failure to train and supervise, and loss of consortium arising from an incident in which the officer confronted the plaintiff after reports of public urination, used a taser during the encounter when the plaintiff resisted, and arrested him. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The decision rested on the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the officer's actions under the circumstances, applying standards that require viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party but rejecting versions blatantly contradicted by the record.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Stephen H. Sweitzer sued American Express Centurion Bank, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Ohio claims of negligence and promissory estoppel after the bank continued reporting credit card debts he disputed as resulting from identity theft by a former business partner. The district court addressed the bank's motion for summary judgment and a motion to substitute parties after the plaintiff's death. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on the FCRA, estoppel, and negligence claims, finding no evidence of reliance on any promises for the estoppel claim, no evidence supporting the negligence claim as pleaded, and that the FCRA claims were barred; it deemed the substitution motion moot and noted the defamation claim was extinguished by the plaintiff's death.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner Tolliver challenging his state court conviction. The district court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal of multiple claims, including alleged Miranda violations during police questioning, prosecutorial misconduct under Doyle v. Ohio, ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary errors, and cumulative error. The court overruled all objections, adopted the report, and dismissed the petition, finding that the state courts had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, that any errors were harmless given other evidence of guilt, and that some claims were not fairly presented to the state courts. The decision emphasized the limited scope of federal review of state evidentiary and procedural rulings under AEDPA standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a civil dispute between Nexus Holdings and Dafcan Finance over a failed loan agreement involving the transfer of Sleep Holdings stock. After settling the case with an agreement to return stock and money from a brokerage account, the United States seized the account via a warrant based on alleged criminal conduct by the defendants. Nexus moved for the return of the property under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(g). The court granted the motion in part, ordering the release of the stock and $642,392.47 in proceeds from the stock sale, reasoning that Nexus had a valid claim, the United States failed to demonstrate a superior interest or initiate forfeiture proceedings, and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 983(f) supported release despite the seizure.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case was a legal malpractice action brought by insurer National Union Fire Insurance against attorney Richard Wuerth and his firm Lane Alton & Horst for their representation of the insurer's clients in an underlying federal trial that ended in a large adverse verdict and subsequent settlement payment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. Under Ohio law, a law firm cannot be held vicariously liable for legal malpractice unless at least one individual attorney is liable, and direct claims against the firm likewise require underlying individual negligence; because the statute of limitations had extinguished claims against any individual lawyers, the firm could not be liable either.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Kenneth Rodgers sued Q3 Stamped Metal, Inc. and related defendants under ERISA and state law, alleging breach of an employment agreement that promised severance pay, health benefits, a profit bonus pool, and other compensation after his termination as general manager and later as corporate materials manager. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking over $250,000 in damages. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the employment letter created an ERISA plan and whether the plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal law. The opinion noted the company's financial difficulties, changes in the plaintiff's role, and limited payments made upon termination, but concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate without resolving these factual disputes.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from a state court action in which CapitalSource sued several parties, leading Aegis to file counterclaims and third-party claims against additional entities including Trans Healthcare and others. After settlements dismissed the original claims, the remaining counterclaim defendants sought to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. The court granted Aegis's motion to remand, holding that third-party defendants and counterclaim defendants lack authority to remove under the removal statutes. The reasoning relied on strict construction of the term "defendant" in § 1441(a), Sixth Circuit precedent in First National Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, and the principle that only parties against whom the original plaintiff asserts claims qualify for removal.

procedure