This case involves a cross-motion for summary judgment in a CERCLA action where the Interlake defendants sought contribution from the City of Toledo and Toledo Coke for response costs related to hazardous substance contamination on a right-of-way property. The court addressed whether the City, as the current titled owner of the property acquired via deed, could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1) even without being an operator. It rejected a conjunctive reading of the statute requiring both ownership and operation, instead adopting the disjunctive interpretation from Sixth Circuit precedent in AM International and other cases, which holds that current owners or operators qualify as potentially responsible parties. The court concluded that the City's purchase made it a current owner subject to liability under CERCLA, while also noting related issues like the City's separate fraudulent conveyance claim and defenses.
In this case, the City of Toledo sought summary judgment holding the Interlake defendants liable under CERCLA § 107(a) for response costs incurred due to hazardous substance releases, specifically benzene contamination, at the former Toledo Coke Plant site, along with a declaratory judgment for future costs. The court granted the motion after finding that the four required elements were satisfied: Interlake and its predecessors owned and operated the facility at the time of disposal, a release occurred, the release caused the City's costs, and those costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan. Corporate succession through name changes and reorganizations made Acme Steel the responsible successor entity, based on interrogatory admissions and testimony. The court also entered the requested declaratory judgment on future liability, citing CERCLA's mandatory provision for such judgments to avoid relitigation.
The case concerns cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Beazer East, Inc. and Interlake entities in a larger action brought by the City of Toledo alleging environmental contamination and liability under CERCLA, RCRA, and state law at the former Toledo Coke Plant. Beazer sought a ruling that Interlake must indemnify it under the 1986 Purchase Agreement for liabilities tied to Interlake's pre-1978 plant operations, while Interlake cross-moved for a declaration that it had no such duty because Beazer had assumed the relevant obligations. The court examined the contract's liability-allocation provisions, particularly section 3.1(c)(ii), and concluded that the phrase 'or otherwise' is not restricted by the ejusdem generis canon to the same class as the enumerated examples of air, streams, lakes, and rivers.
The case concerns Ohio Edison Company's effort to vacate an arbitration award arising from the discharge of employee Kathleen Morabeto for testing positive for marijuana in violation of the company's drug policy, after she had returned from a non-work injury. The parties had negotiated and signed a Last Chance Agreement to resolve the matter without full grievance proceedings. The district court addressed the company's motion to stay an order reinstating the employee pending appeal, applying the four-factor test from Hilton v. Braunskill and concluding that the company had shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding enforcement of the Last Chance Agreement, irreparable harm, and that the public interest supported granting the stay. The court set the supersedeas bond at $80,000 while the appeal proceeded.
The case involved allegations by plaintiff NETO, operator of educational television stations WNEO-TV and WEAO-TV, that defendants ETAMC (operator of WVIZ-TV), Betty Cope, EEN, and IPS violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through a combination and conspiracy implementing a "Duplicate Market Criteria" policy. This policy designated WVIZ-TV as the primary licensee entitled to exclusive rights over certain programming offered by EEN/IPS, while classifying NETO's stations as secondary and barring them from acquiring at least 130 programs since 1985. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting procompetitive benefits of the policy and lack of harm to competition. The court granted the motions, determining that the policy's allocation and exclusivity rules did not unlawfully restrain trade, as primary stations paid higher rates and secondary stations retained access options when exclusivity was not exercised.
This case involved a dispute between educational television stations in Northeast Ohio, with plaintiff NETO (operating WNEO-TV and WEAO-TV) alleging that defendants, including ETAMC (WVIZ-TV), EEN, IPS, and CBC, violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and related Clayton Act provisions through a conspiracy to enforce an exclusivity policy under 'Duplicate Market Criteria.' This policy designated WVIZ-TV as the primary licensee entitled to exclusive programming rights, preventing NETO from acquiring at least 130 programs since 1985, including 'Nature of Things,' and sought injunctive relief after waiving claims for monetary damages. The court addressed CBC's motion for summary judgment, which had been converted from a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against CBC with prejudice, reasoning that after full discovery NETO presented no evidence that CBC was aware of or consciously participated in any conspiracy, as it had merely contracted with IPS to sell programs without evidence of a commitment to an unlawful scheme.
