Ann Aldrich

The case involved Sabrina Bray's federal habeas corpus petition challenging her state conviction for complicity to commit murder with a firearm specification, after she had been indicted only for murder. Bray claimed ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment because her attorney failed to advise her that she could be convicted of complicity even without a murder conviction, did not request a bill of particulars, and did not properly counsel her on the state's plea offer, leading her to reject it and proceed to trial where she was acquitted of murder but convicted of complicity. The district court found that Bray had not procedurally defaulted the claim and that her counsel's errors deprived her of the ability to make an informed decision about the plea. The court conditionally granted the petition, ordering a new plea hearing in state court within sixty days with the opportunity to consider the original or a comparable offer, subject to review for any presumption of vindictiveness if a higher sentence is proposed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved homeowners who sued an attorney for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after receiving a demand letter seeking payment of a debt owed to a contractor client. The court converted the defendant's motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing the claims with prejudice. The decision was based on the conclusion that the attorney was not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA because debt collection made up only a small percentage of his practice and was not a regular part of his business.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiff 01 Communique Laboratory alleged that defendant Citrix's GoToMyPC software infringed its '479 patent for remote computer access. During discovery, the court ordered Citrix to produce its source code on a dedicated server with specific access restrictions. Citrix uploaded most but not all of the requested code, prompting Communique to move for contempt. The court found the order contained a latent ambiguity regarding the scope of production required and that Citrix's omission resulted from extreme negligence rather than deliberate noncompliance, so it declined to hold Citrix in contempt. However, invoking its inherent authority, the court awarded Communique reasonable attorneys' fees and expert costs incurred due to the negligence.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the estates of two lottery winners who received annual payments from the Ohio Super Lotto; after their deaths, the estates valued the remaining non-assignable annuity payments based on a lump-sum distribution from the state lottery and sought refunds of additional estate taxes assessed by the IRS. The IRS had used the annuity valuation tables under IRC section 7520 to determine higher values, resulting in increased tax liabilities that the estates paid before filing refund claims. The court denied the government's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's motion in part, finding that the non-transferability of the annuities made the table-based valuations unrealistic and unreasonable. The decision rested on the principle that restricted marketability affects fair market value, though the court noted that further evidence was needed on an alternative valuation method before resolving the full refund claims.

taxes

This case is an insurance contract dispute between Parker Hannifin Corporation and Steadfast Insurance Company regarding the insurer's obligations to cover damages from defective gaskets in Zenith television sets that caused fires. Parker settled recall and related claims with Zenith for amounts exceeding its $2 million self-insured retention and sought reimbursement plus a declaration that all such claims arose from a single occurrence under the policy. The court granted Parker's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Steadfast's, awarding Parker $1 million plus prejudgment interest, on the grounds that Ohio law treated the damages as arising from one occurrence, the settlement sums were seriously assumed as potentially provable, and no cited policy exclusions applied.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Ohio Court of Appeals Judge William O'Neill, a candidate for the Ohio Supreme Court, who challenged three canons of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct as violating his First Amendment free speech rights in his campaign materials and website. After O'Neill filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction, the court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendant Jonathan Coughlan, the Disciplinary Counsel, later moved to vacate the injunction, arguing that the court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris due to ongoing state disciplinary proceedings. The court denied the motion, holding that Coughlan had waived the abstention argument by choosing to address the constitutional merits of the claims rather than raising abstention earlier.

free speechelectionsprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the Association of Cleveland Firefighters and three individual firefighters challenging Cleveland's City Charter residency requirement for municipal employees, including firefighters, which mandates that appointees become city residents within six months and remain so. The plaintiffs alleged that exemptions were granted arbitrarily to others but denied to them based on personal hardships like family illness or safety threats, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the fundamental right to travel. The court granted the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, applying rational basis review to the non-suspect classification and finding a rational relationship to legitimate government interests, while concluding that the requirement did not penalize interstate travel. The opinion noted that such policies involve no federal constitutional restraint.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the City of Cleveland suing Woodhill Supply, its president, and others for allegedly conspiring with city water division employees to defraud the city of over $1.5 million through bribes, false invoicing for undelivered goods, unauthorized purchases, and substitution of inferior products between 1998 and 2003. The City asserted a federal civil RICO claim along with state RICO and common-law claims such as breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Woodhill and Kaufman moved for judgment on the pleadings on the federal RICO claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the complaint did not allege a distinct RICO enterprise separate from the defendants themselves and that their conduct did not satisfy the statute's requirements. With the sole federal claim dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Williams, the defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and healthcare fraud, as well as related counts of wire fraud and healthcare fraud, arising from his work in a psychiatry practice involving alleged improper billing practices. Williams moved for a new trial, arguing that the government violated Brady and Giglio by withholding a letter to witnesses promising them immunity, and also moved for judgment of acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence. The court vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Booker and Blakely, which held that facts increasing a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by a judge. The court noted that the alleged Brady violation could independently support a new trial but did not reach the sufficiency of the evidence claim, denying the acquittal motion without prejudice and scheduling a joint retrial with a codefendant.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Dr. Lalsingh P. Rohira, a psychotherapist convicted by a jury on five federal charges of conspiracy and health care billing fraud for allegedly upcoding visits, billing unlicensed services as licensed, and charging for missed appointments. Rohira moved for a new trial, citing prosecutorial misconduct, a Brady violation from withheld witness assurances, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence, or alternatively for acquittal. The court granted a new trial under United States v. Booker and Blakely v. Washington, holding that the sentencing guidelines required jury findings on facts increasing maximum penalties rather than judicial determination, and noted a possible independent Brady basis while declining to reach other claims. It denied the acquittal motion without prejudice and scheduled a retrial.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

In this case, Roger Fiordalisi sued police officer Robert Zubek under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Zubek arrested him outside an airport for alleged traffic violations, claiming that Zubek used excessive force by jerking his handcuffed arms and slamming his head into a wall in retaliation for Fiordalisi's criticism, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights, along with state-law claims for assault and battery. Zubek moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and arguing that any force was minimal and necessary. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the force was excessive and whether Zubek acted with malice or in bad faith, which would preclude immunity under federal and Ohio law, and that a jury could reasonably find grounds for punitive damages based on the alleged facts.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved locomotive engineer Bloedow's dispute with CSX Transportation and his union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, over the correct seniority date assigned to him after he completed engineer training. Bloedow claimed his seniority should have remained December 2, 1998, based on a settlement agreement with another union, but CSX changed it to February 22, 1999, at the BLE's direction; he brought federal hybrid claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation, plus a state-law contract claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The federal claims were dismissed as untimely under the six-month limitations period applicable to such hybrid actions, which began running when Bloedow learned of the change in September 2000. The state claim was preempted because it required interpretation of collective bargaining agreements under the Railway Labor Act.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved owners of adult entertainment clubs holding liquor permits challenging the constitutionality of a revised Ohio Administrative Code Rule 52, which sought to limit nudity and sexual conduct in liquor-serving establishments following prior court invalidations of earlier versions. The court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of sections (A)(2), (B)(2), and (B)(3) of the rule but denied the plaintiffs' motion for contempt against state officials. The decision rested on findings that those sections remained unconstitutionally overbroad and infringed on protected expressive conduct under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as they applied to non-obscene performances and were not sufficiently tailored to address secondary effects like crime without burdening lawful expression. The ruling drew on prior proceedings in the same litigation and evidence presented regarding the rule's scope and impact on venues combining alcohol service with entertainment.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Carlisle Township filing suit in state court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to enforce two resolutions regulating sexually-oriented businesses and adult cabarets against defendants operating The Brass Pole at a specific site. After removal to federal court by the defendants, the township moved to remand the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and ordered remand to the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to conclude that the claims arose under Ohio law despite references to federal constitutional provisions. Federal defenses or anticipated constitutional challenges, the court reasoned, do not create original federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pre-enforcement declaratory relief would risk issuing an advisory opinion.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the Estate of Tasha Taylor and her family members seeking underinsured motorist coverage under insurance policies issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company to her mother's employer, following a fatal car accident in 1995. The plaintiffs claimed coverage under Ohio law as interpreted in Scott-Pontzer, after settling with the tortfeasor and another insurer. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the coverage issue, ruling that the policies provided UIM coverage by operation of law because St. Paul had not properly offered or rejected such coverage in compliance with Ohio statutes, and that the family members qualified as insureds through the underlying policy. The court also found no bar to coverage from notice or subrogation provisions, as the insurer suffered no prejudice.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs Jo Ann and Wendell Gieger suing Unum Life Insurance Company after denial of long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. The Giegers brought state law claims for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, which Unum moved to dismiss as preempted by ERISA, along with striking the jury demand. The court held that the state claims were preempted but interpreted the complaint as alleging viable ERISA claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 for recovery of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty, denying dismissal while granting the motion to strike the jury trial demand because ERISA actions do not entitle parties to jury trials.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved Ashtabula County Medical Center's challenge to a Medicare administrative decision denying it classification as a "new provider" eligible for an exemption from routine cost limits on reimbursement for its new skilled nursing facility. The facility had been established after ACMC purchased certificate-of-need rights to fifteen nursing home beds from an unrelated county home and obtained Medicare certification, with no transfer of staff, residents, or other assets. The court granted ACMC's motion for summary judgment and denied the Secretary's, holding that the plain language of the new provider regulation applied because ACMC had created an entirely new institution distinct from the prior operator. The decision rested on the facts that the SNF had new management, staff, equipment, and patient admissions drawn from the same service area but operated independently.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich suing the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), a Department of Defense agency, to block a contract awarded to ACS Government Solutions Group for retirement and annuitant pay services. Kucinich alleged that the contract violated the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 procedures, and constitutional protections for due process, equal protection, and free speech, and he sought a temporary restraining order. The court dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Kucinich lacked Article III standing because his claimed injuries, such as economic effects on his district, were generalized grievances shared by many citizens rather than personal harms traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by the court.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involves a habeas corpus petition by Julio Roman, a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic convicted of federal crimes related to counterfeit visas and social security misuse, who was ordered removed after the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied his request for a discretionary waiver under INA § 212(h). Roman challenged the constitutionality of § 212(h), which bars such waivers for legal permanent residents convicted of aggravated felonies but permits them for non-residents with similar convictions, arguing this distinction violates equal protection. The court granted the writ of habeas corpus, holding the provision unconstitutional because the classification lacks a rational basis even under the deferential standard applied to immigration matters. The decision rests on the lack of any justification for treating similarly situated individuals differently based solely on their prior admission status as permanent residents.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

This case arose from a fatal car accident involving four employees of Bucyrus, where the driver was underinsured, and one estate sought underinsured motorist benefits under the employer's policy with Sumitomo after state court filing. Sumitomo removed the case to federal court, prompting a motion to remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) and a motion to consolidate with related cases from the same accident. The court denied remand, holding that this contract action for UIM coverage is not a "direct action" against an insurer under the statute's exception, which is limited to certain tort claims and does not destroy diversity between the Ohio plaintiff and the New York/New Jersey insurer. It granted consolidation because the cases share factual and legal issues regarding the same policy and accident, which would promote efficiency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory