James G. Carr

This § 1983 case involved present and former participants in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority in Ohio, who alleged that the authority terminated their benefits without due process of law or in violation of federal regulations. The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on claims that the termination process, including the conduct of informal hearings, deprived them of a protected property interest. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims brought by plaintiff Nancy Woods, finding no due process violation in her termination proceedings. As to plaintiff Caulene Fuller, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims but denied it on the claim that the hearing officer improperly relied solely on untested hearsay evidence in terminating her benefits, which violated due process requirements for an opportunity to confront evidence. The core reasoning centered on whether the administrative procedures, including notice, hearing opportunities, and the burden of proof, satisfied constitutional and statutory standards for terminating federal housing assistance.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertyprocedure

This case arose from an assault on immigration detainee Anthony Peart by fellow inmate Larry White at the Seneca County Jail, where Peart sued the county, its former sheriff, and commissioners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to inadequate inmate classification and failure to protect, along with related state-law claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of deliberate indifference and no policy or custom causing the harm. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that evidence of the jail's complete abandonment of required classification procedures—despite known risks from White's history—created triable issues on whether officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm under Fourteenth Amendment standards for pretrial detainees. Core reasoning focused on Monell liability principles, the duty to segregate based on objective criteria, and the foreseeability of harm from ignoring classification protocols.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involved an ADA claim by Roger Miller, a former Whirlpool toolmaker, who was fired after refusing to complete a detailed medical questionnaire required for certification to operate Powered Industrial Vehicles (PIVs). Miller alleged the questionnaire violated the ADA's prohibition on disability-related inquiries of employees. The court denied both parties' motions for partial summary judgment. It reasoned that the questionnaire qualified as a protected disability-related inquiry under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) because it sought information on medications, illnesses, and medical conditions that could reveal disabilities, and Whirlpool failed to demonstrate the inquiry was job-related and consistent with business necessity or required by OSHA regulations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves federal criminal charges against defendant Alex David Cook for possession and distribution of child pornography. The court addressed the defendant's motion to suppress statements made to FBI agents and consents to search obtained during execution of a warrant at his apartment and a subsequent polygraph examination at the FBI office. The court granted the motion in part, suppressing the defendant's statements made outside his apartment because they resulted from custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The court denied the motion in part, holding that statements during and after the polygraph were admissible because the defendant voluntarily participated and any deception by agents did not render the confession involuntary under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a breach of contract dispute between Younglove Construction, LLC and PSD Development, LLC arising from a design/build agreement to construct an animal feed manufacturing plant, with Younglove seeking payment and foreclosure of a mechanics lien and PSD counterclaiming for construction defects. The court ruled on Younglove's motion to exclude certain testimony from PSD's expert appraiser Jeffrey Pelegrin regarding diminution in the property's fair market value. It granted the motion in part, holding that Pelegrin's approach of analogizing construction defects to environmental contamination stigma was not a reliable or generally accepted method under Daubert standards for proving contract damages, as Ohio law demands greater certainty in such cases and the expert's interview-based methodology lacked sufficient rigor or foundation in standard appraisal practice for this context.

propertyprocedure

This case originated as a state-court foreclosure action by HSBC Bank against John Arnett, who later filed counterclaims including a putative class action against additional counterclaim defendant Litton Loan Servicing for alleged mortgage-servicing misconduct. Litton removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting minimal diversity, numerosity, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Arnett moved to remand, arguing that CAFA does not authorize removal by a counterclaim defendant. The court granted the motion, holding that the text of the removal statutes limits removal authority to original defendants and that CAFA does not expand this authority to additional counterclaim defendants, consistent with decisions from other circuits and indications from the Sixth Circuit. The case was therefore returned to state court.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Westfield Insurance Co. had a duty under a commercial general liability policy to defend and indemnify subcontractor Custom Agri Systems, Inc. (CAS) in underlying contract litigation with Younglove Construction and PSD Development over alleged defects in a steel grain bin at an animal feed plant. After initially ruling that Westfield must defend CAS, the court granted Westfield's motion for reconsideration, vacated its prior order, granted Westfield's motion for summary judgment, and denied CAS's cross-motion. The court reasoned that various policy exclusions—including those for contractual liability, damage to the insured's product or work, impaired property, and professional services—applied to the claims alleging defects in the bin's design and construction, so that the policy did not cover the damages at issue. Jurisdiction was based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and Ohio law governed the policy interpretation.

business & regulatory

This case is a product liability action in which plaintiff Jennifer Burdine alleges that she suffered permanent shoulder damage in 2004 from postoperative use of a pain pump manufactured by Stryker Corporation, which she claims was promoted for an off-label use involving excessive medication volume not approved by the FDA. She seeks punitive damages among other relief. The defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the punitive damages claim, relying on Ohio Revised Code § 2307.80(C)(1)(a), which bars such damages for FDA-approved drugs or devices if manufactured and labeled in material compliance with FDA terms, unless the plaintiff proves fraud on the FDA. The court overruled the motion without prejudice and without reaching the merits or preemption issues, holding that the motion was premature because the defendant had not answered the complaint, put compliance at issue, or produced evidence of compliance, so the statutory burden had not yet shifted to the plaintiff.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which HoneyBaked Foods sought a declaratory judgment and damages after its all-risk policy insurer denied claims for roughly $8 million in losses stemming from listeria contamination of ham and turkey products, including product disposal and business interruption. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment in part on the declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims, concluding that the policy's Group I and Group II exclusions for contamination, mold, fungus, and bacteria applied and that no coverage existed under ensuing-loss provisions or other carve-outs. The court nevertheless directed the parties to propose questions for certification to the Ohio Supreme Court to resolve whether Ohio law might still afford coverage contingent on jury findings regarding disputed facts.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved Bench Billboard Company challenging the City of Toledo's 2007 ordinance regulating advertising courtesy benches at bus stops, which added requirements such as affixing trash receptacles, maintaining areas free of snow and debris, and prohibiting political advertising. BBC sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of its First Amendment free speech rights, equal protection, due process, and a state tortious interference claim after its permit renewal requests were denied. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the ordinance's political speech ban and revocation provision based on prejudice to the public interest violated the First Amendment and were severable from the rest of the chapter, while finding no equal protection violation, no substantive rights created by § 1983 itself, and no tortious interference since no benches had been removed. This opinion addresses BBC's motion for attorney's fees under § 1988, granting the request but directing a revised statement with reductions for time spent on related criminal proceedings, block billing, and quarter-hour increments.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a property developer's federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims against the City of Toledo and a former city councilman, arising from the denial of a rezoning application for commercial development. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of its earlier summary judgment order in favor of the defendants. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked a protected property or liberty interest to support due process claims, failed to demonstrate it was similarly situated for equal protection purposes, could not establish a First Amendment violation, and did not show the zoning decision lacked a rational relationship to legitimate governmental interests such as preserving industrial land use, even if one councilmember had an improper motive.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatory

This products liability case involves a pet owner's claim that his dog died after using Vetsulin, a veterinary insulin product manufactured by defendant Intervet, filed as a putative class action in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to bar the defendant from sending misleading communications to prospective class members and to rescind existing settlement agreements obtained from complainants. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part without prejudice, ordering the defendant to disclose the pending class action when seeking future releases while declining to void prior settlements. The core reasoning relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) and Supreme Court precedent in Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, which authorize judicial limits on party communications with putative class members to prevent undermining class rights, supported by a record showing the defendant had obtained over 100 releases without mentioning the lawsuit.

proceduretorts & liability

This case originated as a state-court foreclosure action by U.S. Bank against James Adams in Ohio. Adams responded with a class-action counterclaim alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations and later added Wells Fargo as a counterclaim defendant. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. The court granted Adams' motion to remand, ruling that additional counterclaim defendants are not "defendants" authorized to remove under CAFA or the general removal statute. The decision rests on the narrow construction of removal statutes, under which the term "defendant" refers only to original defendants, following the majority of courts that have addressed the issue.

procedure

This case is a contract and insurance coverage dispute arising from construction of an animal feed facility, in which subcontractor Custom Agri sought a declaration that its commercial general liability insurer Westfield must defend and indemnify it against claims by PSD Development for defective work on a grain bin, its foundation, and resulting damages. The court granted Custom Agri’s motion for summary judgment on the duty to defend, denied Westfield’s cross-motion, and denied Westfield’s request to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court. The core reasoning was that the policy’s exclusions, including the contractual liability exclusion, did not clearly bar coverage for the pleaded contract and potential tort claims, which were at least arguably within the policy’s coverage, triggering the insurer’s duty to defend even if indemnity might later be unavailable.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a contract suit filed in Ohio state court by plaintiff 3W International, a Florida corporation, against defendant Scottdel, an Ohio corporation. Scottdel removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, but later conceded that removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because a defendant may not remove a case to federal court in its home state. The court granted the motion to remand the case to state court. On the request for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the court awarded only limited fees covering the time needed for a brief warning to defendant’s counsel about the error, reasoning that the removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis even if made in good faith, but that the plaintiff could have avoided most of the incurred costs.

procedure

This case involves a copyright infringement lawsuit where plaintiff Corbis Corporation sought attorneys' fees from defendants following a jury verdict in its favor. The court reviewed the plaintiff's motion for costs and fees but found the supporting documentation insufficient to determine the reasonableness of the requested fees. Specifically, the billing invoices lacked detailed descriptions of tasks performed and time allocated to each, and the affidavit provided only monthly summaries. Relying on Sixth Circuit precedent requiring detailed records for fee awards under the Copyright Act, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit more detailed billing statements by July 8, 2010, allowing defendants to respond.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act involves a railroad conductor who alleged that uneven, lumpy, and sloped walking surfaces in the rail yard caused her knee injuries, leading to bilateral knee replacements. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing both a lack of evidence of negligence and that the claim for the right knee was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony about reported hazardous conditions, combined with medical opinions linking her injuries to work activities, created genuine issues of material fact on negligence, foreseeability, and causation sufficient to reach a jury, while distinguishing prior precedent on de minimis surface irregularities; the limitations defense was also left for trial resolution.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned KindHearts, a charitable organization, challenging the Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) blocking of its assets pending investigation and provisional designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Executive Order 13224. The court had previously found that OFAC's actions violated KindHearts' Fourth Amendment rights by seizing assets without a warrant, Fifth Amendment rights through vague criteria and inadequate notice and opportunity to respond, and acted arbitrarily in limiting access to funds for legal counsel. In this remedies opinion, the court concluded that the seizure was unreasonable even under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, ordered OFAC to provide detailed unclassified notice of the legal and factual bases for the block (with options for handling classified information), and addressed related procedural violations while declining to revisit the merits of the underlying designation at that stage.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved current and former machine repair employees at Chrysler Jeep plants suing their unions (UAW International and Local 12) for breaching the duty of fair representation, claiming that post-1997 merger actions and a new collective bargaining agreement gave preferential work assignments to other skilled trades like millwrights and electricians. The court granted the unions' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion. The core reasoning was that the challenged work practices and dispute resolutions complied with the 1997 contract's explicit terms on flexible assignments, reduced classifications, and production support, without evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct by the unions within the statute of limitations; earlier events could not independently support the claim.

labor & employment

This case involves a disabled plaintiff who was denied permission to use his Segway in a state government building managed by the defendant, leading to claims of discrimination under Titles II and III of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that the plaintiff had standing for compensatory damages claims under Title II after determining that the defendant could be considered a public entity, while noting that injunctive relief claims were moot due to policy changes.

civil rightsprocedure