S. Arthur Spiegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case arose after a fire destroyed the plaintiff's home and vehicle, both insured by State Farm entities, leading the insurers to deny coverage on grounds of material misrepresentation and failure to cooperate with the investigation. The plaintiff sued under Ohio law for breach of contract, bad faith denial of the claims, and civil conspiracy. The court denied summary judgment to both sides on the breach of contract claims because genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute, but granted summary judgment to the defendants on the bad faith claims, finding the denial was supported by reasonable justification from their investigation, and on the conspiracy claim because a breach of contract cannot serve as the underlying unlawful act under Ohio law. The court set dates for a pretrial conference and jury trial on the remaining claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a discovery dispute in a civil action brought by plaintiffs against several corporate defendants, including Martin Franchise, Inc. and its sister company American Laundry Machinery, Inc., apparently concerning liability related to contaminated real estate in Ohio. The district court affirmed a magistrate judge's order granting in part and denying in part Martin's motion for a protective order, requiring Martin to produce corporate and financial records as well as certain insurance applications linking it to the disputed property, but not investigator reports. The court reasoned that Ohio Supreme Court precedent like Minno v. Pro-Fab did not bar such discovery because plaintiffs sought information to establish shareholder liability and corporate relationships, and that the insurance applications were relevant to Martin's control over the property under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The order was extended to all defendants, with instructions for immediate production to advance the case.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by Jorge Bucio, who at age thirteen was convicted in Ohio juvenile court of felony murder and child endangerment after his infant brother died while in his care. Bucio challenged his conviction on grounds including a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to an un-Mirandized custodial interrogation, a due process violation in sentencing under statutory findings, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the writ on the self-incrimination and ineffective assistance claims after determining that Bucio was in custody during questioning, his initial statements were not voluntary, and counsel failed to properly investigate or suppress the resulting confessions. The court found the state courts' contrary rulings unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Chilcutt v. Ford Motor Co., truck driver Carl Chilcutt and his wife sued Ford for negligence under Ohio law after Chilcutt fell into an uncovered sump pit at Ford's plant while covering a dumpster with a tarp, sustaining knee injuries; his wife also sought damages for emotional distress and loss of consortium. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that the danger was open and obvious given Chilcutt's frequent prior visits to the area and the pit's known purpose. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on the duty element because attendant circumstances, including the oily pad obscuring the pit, the distraction of handling the tarp, and factual disputes over warnings or the pit's prior uncovered state, could lead reasonable minds to disagree on whether the hazard was obvious. The court did not reach breach or causation as Ford had not addressed them.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over allegedly defective plastic shims used in construction projects, where High Concrete sued Korolath for damages after replacing the shims, and Korolath in turn sued Spartech, the manufacturer of the raw material, for breach of contract, breach of warranty, products liability, and contribution. The court denied Spartech's motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the existence of a contract, the validity of express and implied warranties, the applicability of the economic loss doctrine in light of alleged property damage, and Korolath's potential entitlement to indemnification and contribution. The core reasoning is that the evidence presented does not conclusively show the absence of liability on Spartech's part, allowing the claims to proceed to trial.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs CCB Ohio LLC and related entities, who develop broadband over power line technology for electrical utilities, suing defendant Chemque, Inc. after its Q-Tel sealing gel allegedly failed to solidify as represented, leaked from outdoor electrical couplers, and caused property damage. Plaintiffs asserted thirteen claims including breach of express and implied warranties, multiple strict product liability theories, negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant by dismissing only the negligence claim (Count 10), finding it abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act as it essentially restated a common-law product liability cause of action, but denied summary judgment on all other claims because material factual disputes existed regarding product representations, testing, environmental suitability, and causation. The court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment and their motion to strike.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, Petitioner Kelley challenged his Ohio state court convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery and felonious assault after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included an agreed sentence. He raised four claims, including denial of due process by the state appellate court's refusal to grant a delayed appeal, violation of his right to a jury trial by imposition of a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, an ex post facto violation, and lack of notice regarding sentence enhancements. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the petition, finding the due process and appeal-related claims non-cognizable in federal habeas review as they involved state procedural matters, and determining the remaining claims lacked merit because the petitioner had been advised of his rights, received effective assistance of counsel, and was sentenced within statutory ranges. The District Court adopted the recommendation in full and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Ratcliff v. Moore, five Ohio prisoners filed a § 1983 action alleging that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction failed to accommodate their Asatru religious practices and that prison policies unconstitutionally favored Abrahamic religions while improperly designating certain groups as security threats. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment, appointment of counsel, class certification, preliminary injunction, and joinder. The court reasoned that the religious-accommodation claims were substantially duplicative of those already pending in an earlier-filed class action, Miller v. Wilkinson, and therefore subject to dismissal under the first-filed rule to avoid duplicative litigation. The remaining non-religious claims were dismissed because they were vague, conclusory, and lacked the factual specificity required to state a claim or support summary judgment.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Whitt Machine, Inc. suing Essex Insurance Co. for breach of contract after a fire destroyed their building, seeking additional coverage beyond the $600,000 policy limit for debris removal and asbestos cleanup costs exceeding $200,000. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's, dismissing the breach of contract claim. The core reasoning was that the policy's Change in Conditions Endorsement explicitly excluded coverage for losses caused by pollutants, overriding other provisions, and the insurer had already paid the full limits including the additional $10,000 for debris removal.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a plaintiff's challenge to the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on a combination of mental and physical impairments. The plaintiff argued that the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions by favoring non-treating physicians over his treating doctor, made erroneous credibility findings regarding his and his ex-wife's testimony, failed to find him disabled under Listing 12.02, and incorrectly determined he could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, affirming the ALJ's decision and dismissing the case. The core reasoning was that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusions, including the rejection of the treating physician's opinion due to its limited basis and inconsistency with other medical evaluations, the alignment of credibility assessments with objective medical records, the plaintiff's failure to meet the required criteria under the listing, and a reasonable interpretation of reaching limitations in light of the plaintiff's daily activities.

healthcare

In this case, plaintiff Melinda Jackson, an African-American former employee of United Dairy Farmers, sued her employer alleging race discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act after her termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or rebut its legitimate reasons based on attendance issues, and that the termination was unrelated to her FMLA-protected leave to care for her son. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding inconsistencies in the application of attendance policies, abrupt schedule changes, racially charged comments, and whether the stated reasons were pretextual. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, denying summary judgment because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created triable issues on both the discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Maxey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., plaintiffs sued their insurers after the companies denied claims for losses from a fire that destroyed their home and vehicle, asserting breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay, and conspiracy while seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved to bifurcate the bad faith and conspiracy claims from the contract claims, to stay related discovery until the contract claims were resolved, and to separate trials on punitive damages from compensatory damages. The court denied bifurcation and the protective order for the bad faith claims, concluding that the issues were sufficiently intertwined and that prejudice concerns did not outweigh considerations of efficiency, but it granted bifurcation of punitive from compensatory damages. The ruling on punitive damages followed Ohio Revised Code § 2315.21(B)(1), which requires bifurcation in tort actions upon a party's motion, and the court determined that the bad faith counts qualified as tort claims subject to the statute.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned multiple defendants convicted after a six-week trial of mail and bank fraud, money laundering, false statements to banks, and obstruction of federal proceedings arising from a scheme to make unauthorized recurring credit-card charges to consumers for dietary supplements and to conceal the activity from banks. The district court denied all pending post-verdict motions by the individual and corporate defendants for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, or to set aside the forfeiture findings. The court applied the standards of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, permitted a rational jury to find every element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It likewise rejected challenges to the jury’s forfeiture nexus findings as premature while noting they were supported by the trial record.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a plaintiff's challenge to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits, based on a combination of physical and mental impairments. The Administrative Law Judge found the plaintiff not disabled after determining that his allegations were not fully credible, that he retained residual functional capacity for work with limitations, and that suitable jobs existed in significant numbers. On review, the Magistrate Judge examined the record and found the ALJ's conclusions supported by substantial evidence, including proper evaluation of medical opinions, medication side effects, and credibility factors. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, affirming the Commissioner's decision as within the zone of choice and supported by substantial evidence.

healthcareprocedure