District Court, S.D. Ohio — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Kulick v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2011-03-23 · cited 5×
This case involves plaintiff Roy Kulick, a former clinical research director at Ethicon Endo-Surgery, who alleged he was placed on paid leave for a fitness-for-duty psychological evaluation, issued warnings, and ultimately terminated after workplace conflicts and after retaining counsel to challenge the leave. Kulick brought claims including disability discrimination under perceived mental health issues, retaliation for consulting an attorney, violation of Ohio public policy, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the contract, estoppel, and one public policy claim but denied it as to disability discrimination, retaliation, and the remaining public policy claim, finding genuine issues of material fact on the prima facie elements, causation via temporal proximity, and whether the employer's stated reason of insubordination was pretextual.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2011-02-03 · cited 4×
This case involved the parents of Jessica Logan, who committed suicide in 2008 after facing harassment from fellow high school students over a nude photo she had sent. The parents sued the Sycamore Community School Board, City of Montgomery police officer Paul Payne, and the city, alleging that Payne increased the risk of harm to Logan by advising her on the photo incident and encouraging a television interview about sexting, while failing to protect her from subsequent bullying. The court granted summary judgment to Payne and the city, holding that Payne was entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence did not show he created or increased the risk of harm to Logan, as students already knew her identity in the photo and harassment continued independently of his actions. The court found no basis for claims of deliberate indifference or equal protection violations and allowed further discovery only against the remaining school board defendant.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability
Pearson v. Ford Motor Company
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010-10-05 · cited 2×
In Pearson v. Ford Motor Company, an African-American employee with 28 years at Ford alleged he faced discriminatory discipline from a new Caucasian supervisor, filed multiple complaints with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and took disability leave before being terminated after expressing homicidal thoughts toward the supervisor during a medical evaluation for benefits. Ford cited its zero-tolerance policy on workplace violence threats as the reason for discharge. The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the Ohio public policy claim but allowing the Title VII and FMLA retaliation claims to proceed to trial, finding genuine issues of material fact on causation, temporal proximity to protected activity, and whether Ford had an honest belief in the threat or consistently applied its policy.
labor & employmentcivil rights
United States v. James
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010-09-23
The case involved a defendant indicted on federal charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, fictitious obligations, and bankruptcy fraud, stemming from alleged false statements on mortgage applications for properties in Ohio and Michigan, as well as other loan-related conduct. The court dismissed counts 1, 2, and 3 on the grounds that each was duplicitous in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, because the counts incorporated by reference allegations of a separate, uncharged car loan fraud scheme, effectively charging multiple distinct offenses in a single count. It denied the motion to dismiss count 2 for failure to state an offense, granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike surplusage from the indictment, and denied the motions for separate trials on counts 3 and 4, finding no substantial prejudice from joinder and that limiting instructions could address any risks. Count 4 for bankruptcy fraud was allowed to proceed to a new trial date.
criminal lawprocedure
Salvagne v. Fairfield Ford, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010-08-19 · cited 5×
This case arose from plaintiffs' purchase of a used car from defendant Fairfield Ford, involving a retail installment contract (RISC) with specific financing terms and a separate Spot Delivery Agreement allowing the dealer to cancel or reassign the financing within 10 days. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) due to conflicting and misleading disclosures about the finality of the loan terms, as well as claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), seeking actual and statutory damages. The court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on the TILA claim, finding the documents rendered the disclosed terms illusory and failed to provide clear, consistent disclosures as required by federal law, but granted summary judgment to defendant on the ECOA, OCSPA, and actual damages claims. The court reasoned that plaintiffs failed to show detrimental reliance on the TILA violations to support actual damages, and no evidence supported the other statutory violations. A hearing was set to determine the amount of statutory damages under TILA.
business & regulatory
Schott v. I-FLOW CORP.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010-03-16 · cited 4×
In this product liability case, multiple plaintiffs alleged that they developed permanent shoulder joint damage known as chondrolysis after using I-Flow Corporation's pain pumps to deliver continuous anesthetic following orthopedic surgery, claiming the company failed to warn of risks associated with use in shoulder joints and asserting claims including strict liability for defective labeling, negligence, and breach of warranty. Defendant I-Flow moved to exclude the plaintiffs' general causation experts under Daubert standards, sought summary judgment on grounds including lack of admissible causation evidence, and opposed consolidation of the cases. The court denied all Daubert motions, finding the experts' opinions sufficiently based on reliable principles, methods, and data such as published studies and statistical analyses that met the criteria for scientific validity. It also denied summary judgment because the admissible expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact on causation, and it granted in part the motion to consolidate the cases solely for litigating the general causation question.
torts & liabilityprocedure