Peter C. Economus

This case involved an appeal by the United States from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 7 proceeding of Two Springs Membership Club, concerning the validity of federal tax liens asserted against the debtor's property sale proceeds. The IRS based its liens on tax assessments against other entities alleged to be alter egos of the debtor, and it argued that a competing creditor was judicially estopped from challenging one aspect of those relationships. The bankruptcy court required the IRS to prove the alter ego relationships by a preponderance of the evidence despite the estoppel and lack of other objections. The district court reversed, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), the IRS's claim was deemed allowed without additional proof once no party in interest objected. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

taxesprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Allied Erecting and Allied-Gator and former employee Mark Ramun along with his new employers Genesis and Paladin, concerning allegations that Ramun retained and disclosed confidential documents and trade secrets related to Allied's MT multi-tool product after leaving Allied, that Genesis's competing LXP product was developed using that information, and that Genesis engaged in false advertising. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment in part on multiple counts, including breach of Ramun's employment contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and Lanham Act false advertising claims, while denying summary judgment on two remaining counts. On the contract claim, the court reasoned that the employment agreement was expressly between Ramun and only Allied Erecting, so it did not cover the alleged retention or disclosure of Allied-Gator information. On the trade secret and related claims, the court found insufficient evidence that the information qualified as trade secrets, was used by defendants, or that any advertising was literally false or intended to deceive. On the Lanham Act claim, the court held that the statements at issue were either literally true, non-actionable puffery, or lacked proof of intent to deceive.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, Roger Moore, who had pled guilty to knowingly traveling from Massachusetts to Ohio for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and a sentence violating the Constitution and federal laws. The district court denied the motion in full. The court reasoned that Moore failed to meet the two-prong Strickland standard by showing either deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice, and that his sentencing-related claims were procedurally defaulted because he did not object at the hearing, with no prejudice established even if cause existed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wood v. Summit County Fiscal Office, plaintiff Thomas Wood, a former employee of the Summit County Fiscal Office, sued after being terminated in December 2005, alleging violations of his constitutional rights stemming from internal discrimination complaints he filed in early 2005, an investigation into his unauthorized presence in the office after swiping out, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Wood received adequate pre-termination and post-termination due process through notice, a hearing opportunity (which he waived), and an evidentiary appeal before the Human Resources Commission, and that references to potential employment consequences for non-cooperation in the sheriff's investigation did not violate the Fifth Amendment under precedents like Garrity v. New Jersey. Wood did not appeal the termination affirmance to state court, and the record showed no evidence supporting claims of retaliation or other constitutional deprivations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Carter v. Bradshaw, a death row inmate convicted of aggravated murder, robbery, and rape filed a federal habeas corpus petition raising claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of fair trial rights. Following an evidentiary hearing and review of expert reports detailing the petitioner's schizophrenia, intellectual disabilities, and communication deficits, the district court found Sean Carter incompetent to assist in litigating several grounds for relief. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and prospectively tolled the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) to permit potential refiling upon restoration of competency.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Davis, the defendant was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop of his vehicle and a subsequent warrantless search of his residence. The defendant filed motions to suppress the firearms and other evidence from both incidents, claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment due to an invalid stop and improper entry into the home. After consolidated hearings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that both motions be granted, finding that officers lacked an articulable basis for the stop and failed to establish exigent circumstances or other exceptions justifying the search. The district court reviewed the government's objections, recalled additional witnesses for testimony, and considered the magistrate's analysis of the officers' accounts regarding the stop sign violation and surveillance details.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involved a former general counsel at Youngstown State University who sued the university, alleging gender discrimination in compensation and retaliation for complaining about pay disparities, in violation of Title VII, Title IX, and the Equal Pay Act. The plaintiff claimed she faced unequal pay compared to male colleagues, received warnings about potential liability from discriminatory practices, and had her multi-year contract non-renewed shortly after her complaints, despite prior positive performance reviews and continuity of employment status. The court denied the university's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding employment protections, the timeliness of claims under relevant statutes, and whether the university adequately justified pay differences or non-renewal decisions.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a class action filed in Ohio state court by Rosalyn Levitansky against FIA Card Services, alleging breach of contract over cash advance and balance transfer fees that exceeded the $75 cap specified in the parties' agreement, despite promotional offers limiting fees to 3%. FIA removed the case to federal district court, claiming complete preemption under Sections 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act, which govern usury claims against national banks. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the claim was a straightforward state-law breach-of-contract action rather than a usury claim, because the plaintiff did not allege that the fees violated any substantive legal limits but instead exceeded the specific negotiated contractual maximum. Drawing on Supreme Court precedent in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson and a similar district court decision in Patterson v. Regions Bank, the court reasoned that complete preemption under the NBA applies only to usury allegations and does not extend to ordinary contract disputes incidentally affecting banking activities.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Scott v. Allstate Indemnity Company, homeowners Derrick and Carol Scott sued their insurer after Allstate denied coverage for fire damage to their home and contents. The fire started when Derrick Scott dropped a lit match onto a wet spot in his garage to investigate it, causing the liquid to ignite and spread; Allstate concluded the loss fell under policy exclusions for damage that may reasonably be expected to result from intentional acts. The district court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment on the breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims (dismissing the declaratory-judgment count as well), holding that the undisputed facts showed the damage was not covered even when the Scotts' account was accepted as true. The court distinguished precedents involving unintended injuries and rejected arguments that the fire qualified as an "accidental" or "hostile" loss requiring coverage.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves two probationary deputy sheriffs, Tawanna Young and Melissa Desavigny, who were appointed by the Mahoning County Sheriff in 2000 and later involved in a May 2001 incident where Young used force against an inmate after a refusal to follow orders, resulting in assault charges against the inmate and an internal investigation that uncovered discrepancies based on witness statements. The plaintiffs brought claims against the county, apparently under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations related to their employment and the handling of the incident. In ruling on the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court analyzed municipal liability under Monell, requiring a policy or custom to impose entity liability rather than respondeat superior, and considered the applicability of 'class of one' equal protection claims under Village of Willowbrook v. Olech in the employment discrimination context. The opinion addressed whether such claims could proceed without membership in a protected class and distinguished relevant Sixth Circuit precedents on selective enforcement.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Bukta v. JC Penney Co., Inc., a longtime employee sued her employer after experiencing symptoms from conversion disorder triggered by a workplace incident, requesting and initially receiving part-time work as a medical accommodation before being placed on unpaid leave when she could not resume full-time duties. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment on claims including failure to accommodate and discrimination under the ADA, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Ohio law. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding insufficient evidence that the employee engaged in protected activity for the retaliation claim beyond an EEOC filing, that any post-2001 actions constituted new adverse employment actions, and that the plaintiff failed to establish an underlying statutory violation necessary to support the public policy claim. The decision rested on the requirements of the ADA's participation and opposition clauses, the lack of materially adverse changes in employment conditions, and precedents holding that wrongful discharge claims tied to discrimination statutes require proof of the underlying violation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC) efforts to involuntarily terminate defined-benefit pension plans sponsored by Republic Technologies International, LLC, under ERISA Subchapter III, due to insufficient assets, along with related disputes over the date of plan termination (DOPT) raised by the United Steelworkers of America. The court considered three motions: the union's for partial summary judgment on the DOPT, PBGC's for summary judgment, and the company's for interim trustee appointment. The opinion provides an overview of ERISA's structure, PBGC's authority and operations in insuring pension benefits, and the statutory procedures for plan terminations, including notice requirements and judicial involvement under 29 U.S.C. § 1342. Undisputed facts establish that PBGC issued notices of determination to terminate the plans in 2002 after reviewing shutdown benefits and plan funding shortfalls. The core reasoning focuses on interpreting ERISA provisions governing PBGC's enforcement powers and the standards for summary judgment in this context.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerned a labor dispute between a union representing hourly hospital employees and their employer over the termination of three union members arrested during picketing in a strike. The union filed a grievance seeking arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement's just cause and grievance procedures, while the hospital refused, arguing the agreement did not apply to these terminations. The court granted the union's motion for summary judgment and denied the hospital's, compelling arbitration on the basis of the strong presumption of arbitrability under federal labor law and the absence of positive assurance that the arbitration clause was inapplicable.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between Humility of Mary Health Partners, a health care employer, and a union representing its employees over the employer's alleged failure to deduct union dues from employee wages as required by their collective bargaining agreement. After the union pursued a grievance through the contract's three-step procedure without resolution, the matter proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator partially sustained the grievance and established a process for the employer to pay any under-deducted amounts directly to the union. The employer filed suit in federal court seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Applying the deferential review standards from the Steelworkers Trilogy for labor arbitration awards, the court rejected the employer's arguments that the award violated public policy under Section 186 of the Labor Management Relations Act or exceeded the arbitrator's authority under the agreement.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a transsexual employee who sued her employer, a meat packing plant, and its human resources director, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violation of Ohio public policy regarding at-will employment. The plaintiff had been hired using a driver's license listing her as male, was later directed to use only men's restrooms based on that record after restroom-use complaints arose, and was terminated after refusing to return to work under those conditions. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on transsexualism according to established federal precedent interpreting the statute's plain language and congressional intent, that the ADA claim failed because the plaintiff did not identify a major life activity substantially limited by her condition, and that the state-law claim could not proceed without a viable federal claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves a debtor appealing a bankruptcy court's approval of an agreed settlement order between the Chapter 7 trustee and the IRS regarding pre-petition tax claims. The debtor sought to vacate the order, arguing that the bankruptcy judge should have referred alleged perjury by a witness to the U.S. Attorney and allowed further examinations before settling. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, reasoning that the trustee had properly exercised discretion in settling the claims due to the complexity, costs, and uncertain prospects of success in litigation, and that the settlement was fair and in the best interest of the estate.

taxesprocedurecriminal law

This case involves homeowners who sued contractors for alleged defects in the construction of a single-family residence, asserting claims including negligence, willful and wanton recklessness, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and emotional distress. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the recklessness, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty claims. The magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment on the recklessness and misrepresentation claims, dismissing the UCC-based warranty claim as a matter of law, incorporating an express warranty claim into the breach of contract count, and allowing an oral one-year warranty claim to proceed. With no timely objections filed by either party, the district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, resulting in partial denial and partial grant of the motion for summary judgment.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involves homeowners Alvin and Rosemary Phelps who sued David Lengyel, among others, alleging negligence in the electrical wiring performed during construction of their residence in Ohio, and seeking punitive damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim and, alternatively, for partial summary judgment on punitive damages. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying summary judgment on the negligence claim because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Lengyel's role as a subcontractor and his performance of the work. The court granted partial summary judgment on punitive damages, concluding that a negligence claim cannot support such damages under Ohio law absent evidence of actual malice, which plaintiffs failed to provide.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves the UMWA 1992 Benefit Plan's motion to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court in LTV Steel Company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The proceeding concerns whether LTV's termination of retiree health benefits violates the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992. The court denied the motion, holding that mandatory withdrawal was not required because the case does not necessitate substantial interpretation of the Coal Act beyond its straightforward application, and permissive withdrawal was unwarranted given the bankruptcy court's expertise and the goals of efficient bankruptcy administration.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved determining whether defendant Richard Hoyt, charged with six counts of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), was competent to stand trial after initial psychiatric evaluations found him incompetent due to disorders including major depression and personality disorders, followed by treatment and a certificate of restored competency. After a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(e) with testimony and reports from experts including Dr. Wolfson, the court decided that Hoyt was competent to stand trial. The core reasoning was that the government met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence under the Dusky standard, as Dr. Wolfson's assessment showed Hoyt possessed a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and the ability to assist counsel, despite his psychiatric history.

criminal lawprocedure