Patricia Anne Gaughan

This case involves the EEOC suing Kaplan Higher Education Corporation under Title VII §§706 and 707, alleging a nationwide pattern or practice of race discrimination against black job applicants and employees through the use of credit history checks as a hiring and discharge criterion that had a disparate impact and was not job-related. The defendant moved to partially dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that claims based on employment decisions made more than 300 days before the underlying charge (before May 2, 2008) were time-barred. The court granted the motion, holding that the filing deadline in §706(e)(1) applies to EEOC pattern-or-practice suits under §707 because §707(e) incorporates §706 procedures, that the continuing violations doctrine does not apply to these discrete acts, and that recovery is therefore limited to timely claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit brought by Lisa Alleman against trucking company YRC and its driver Robert Trella after her husband Ronald died in a collision with Trella's tractor-trailer on an icy Interstate 90 in Ohio. The plaintiff alleged negligence per se, negligent hiring and supervision by YRC, negligent vehicle maintenance, punitive damages, loss of consortium, pre-impact terror, and wrongful death. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the claims for negligent hiring/supervision, negligent maintenance, punitive damages, and pre-impact terror. It reasoned that the evidence did not establish conscious wrongdoing or a conscious disregard for safety by the driver or company, as Trella had adjusted his speed, the roads appeared treated until the accident, and no facts showed the required level of awareness of a high probability of substantial harm. The decision applied the summary judgment standard under which no genuine issues of material fact existed on those counts.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Michael Horton, who was convicted after trial of murder and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, and who pled guilty to having a weapon while under disability, resulting in a 25-years-to-life sentence. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the petition in part, holding that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense deprived Horton of due process. The court reasoned that the right to present a complete defense, as recognized in California v. Trombetta and Sixth Circuit precedent, requires a self-defense instruction when supported by sufficient evidence, and here the evidence included testimony that the victim struck Horton with a bottle before he fired. The petition was granted as to the trial convictions, remanding for a new trial on those charges, but denied as to the guilty-plea conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a civil rights action brought by plaintiffs Montgomery Ward, Jamie Sutton, and Daisy Ward against Cuyahoga County and Sergeant Michael Sparks, alleging excessive force and related claims stemming from the SWAT team's execution of a high-risk drug search warrant at Ward's apartment on February 5, 2008. Plaintiffs claimed Sparks used unreasonable force when he shot Ward during the entry and that the County failed to properly train its officers. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment in full and granted Sparks's motion in part, dismissing claims for unreasonable search and seizure as well as some state-law claims, but denied summary judgment on the core excessive force claim against Sparks. The core reasoning applied the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard and qualified immunity analysis to the officer's actions, found insufficient evidence of a municipal custom or policy of inadequate training, and addressed state-law immunities under Ohio law.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Shayne Bailey sued the City of Broadview Heights and its mayor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a due process violation because Mayor Alai, who holds executive and administrative powers, presided over the city's Mayor's Court and accepted Bailey's no contest plea to a minor misdemeanor traffic citation. The facts were undisputed, and the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion, holding that no due process violation occurred. The core reasoning was that Ohio Traffic Rule 9 expressly permits mayors to accept guilty or no contest pleas regardless of their executive roles, as guilt is not contested in such proceedings, distinguishing this situation from the Sixth Circuit's decision in DePiero v. City of Macedonia which addressed different circumstances.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a firefighter who sued the City of Bay Village and its mayor after receiving a suspension for statements made at a public city council meeting criticizing the elimination of the city's dive team following a child's drowning death. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion on his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's statements were not protected because they involved recklessly or intentionally false assertions that the absence of the dive team caused the death, as no divers entered the water at the scene, and that the discipline therefore did not amount to a constitutional violation; alternatively, the mayor was entitled to qualified immunity.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Lincoln Electric against distributor TTI, alleging that TTI breached warranties in a Supply Agreement by selling defective transformers that failed to meet design specifications. The purchases at issue were made via purchase orders after the Supply Agreement had expired, and Lincoln did not notify TTI of the defects until serving the complaint more than a year after discovering them in 2007. The court granted TTI's motion for summary judgment, holding that Lincoln failed to provide reasonable and timely notice of the breach as required under Ohio law, and that the delay was not justified under the totality of the circumstances. The ruling turned on the absence of evidence supporting the essential element of proper notice in the contract claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Thompson v. Williams, petitioner Lawrence Thompson filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions on five counts of drug trafficking and two counts of permitting drug abuse, for which he received an aggregate 20-year sentence. The petition raised three grounds: that the non-minimum consecutive sentence violated rights to grand jury presentment, jury trial, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt; that Ohio's remedy of removing statutory presumptions created an ex post facto due process violation; and that the sentence was cruel and unusual under state and federal constitutions due to disproportionality. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissed the petition on the merits, and found no basis for a certificate of appealability. On the first two grounds, the petitioner raised no specific objections, and on the third, the court held that the sentence was within the statutory maximum and that the Constitution does not require strict or comparative proportionality. A new exhaustion argument raised for the first time in objections was not considered because it had not been presented in state court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a medical negligence claim brought by Laverne Daniel against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the Veterans Administration failed to properly diagnose and treat his condition, resulting in the amputation of his right leg. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The ruling was based on the plaintiff's failure to attach an affidavit of merit to the complaint as required by Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 10(D)(2). The court determined that this state rule constitutes substantive law that applies to FTCA claims in federal court, as it would significantly affect the outcome of the litigation and aligns with the goals of avoiding forum-shopping and inequitable administration of laws.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case is a CERCLA action in which the plaintiff sought to recover costs for investigation, dredging, and remediation of contaminated sediment in the Ashtabula River and Harbor from several railroad companies. The court granted the Railroad Defendants' motion to dismiss the three public nuisance claims (Counts II, III, and IV), while leaving the CERCLA, unjust enrichment, and indemnity claims intact. The nuisance claims were held time-barred under Ohio's four-year statute of limitations because they alleged a permanent nuisance whose last alleged polluting act occurred in 1994. Counts III and IV were alternatively dismissed because Ohio law provides no private right of action under the cited water-pollution and nuisance statutes.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves police officers employed by the City of Cleveland who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that the City improperly denied their requests to use accrued compensatory time off when granting such time would require hiring replacement officers at overtime rates. The district court had previously ruled for the defendants, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for further findings on whether the City's policy violated the FLSA's rules on comp time. On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and denied the defendants' motion, holding that the long-standing policy of denying comp time requests to avoid overtime costs for replacements did not qualify as a permissible restriction based on operational needs or undue disruption under the statute and the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

labor & employment

The case involved Theodore Thompson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Ohio state conviction and 10-year sentence for drug trafficking after a guilty plea. Thompson had not filed a timely direct appeal because neither his counsel nor the trial court informed him of his appellate rights, leading to denial of his later motion for a delayed appeal. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's report and granted the petition, holding that counsel's failure to advise on appeal rights amounted to ineffective assistance in violation of clearly established federal law. As a result, Thompson is to be released within 90 days unless the state permits a delayed appeal.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Vita-Mix Corporation against Basic Holdings, Inc. and related entities over U.S. Patent No. 5,302,021, which claims a method of preventing air pocket formation around blender blades by inserting a plunger. The court addressed claim construction for disputed terms in the sole claim of the patent and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's opening brief. Relying on intrinsic evidence including the claim language, specification, and prosecution history, the court construed key phrases such as limiting the method to prevention rather than post-formation stirring, defining 'plunger' as a 'device that can be inserted into a blender,' and giving 'adjacent to and above the rotating blades' and the contact-free requirement their ordinary meanings without additional limitations. The constructions were based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art and avoided importing extraneous restrictions from the specification.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute where FieldTurf sued Sports Construction Group (SCG) for allegedly infringing patents on synthetic grass. After FieldTurf dismissed its claim regarding one patent without prejudice and provided a limited covenant not to sue for a specific installation, it moved to dismiss SCG's counterclaims seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity, arguing no remaining controversy. The court denied the motion, finding that the covenant was insufficiently broad because it did not cover all potential infringement claims by SCG, leaving an ongoing actual controversy that preserved the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which FieldTurf USA, Inc. and FieldTurf Tarkett Inc. allege that Sports Construction Group, LLC infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,551,689 and 6,746,752, both directed to synthetic grass assemblies with resilient granular infill. The parties asked the court to construe disputed claim terms under the Markman framework. The court interpreted terms including "ribbons," "infill layer," "course," "intermixed," "substantially exclusively," "longitudinally intermittently slit," "free-standing strands," and "laterally linked strands" by examining the claim language, specifications, and prosecution history of the patents-in-suit. The constructions distinguish between the overall infill layer and its distinct bottom and top courses, and clarify how the synthetic ribbons are slit and fibrillated.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by Karen Jerman against a law firm and attorney alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act stemming from a foreclosure complaint that included a debt validation notice stating the debt would be assumed valid unless disputed in writing. The plaintiff claimed the notice violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by requiring written disputes and also used misleading language about response deadlines. After an earlier ruling found a violation of the FDCPA, the court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that they qualified for the FDCPA's bona fide error defense because their inclusion of the writing requirement was a good-faith mistake of law made when the legal issue was unsettled in the circuit and they had procedures in place to monitor FDCPA developments.

business & regulatory

The case involved Chapter 13 debtors who alleged that the IRS violated the automatic stay by imposing an administrative freeze on automated processing of their post-petition tax refunds and by delaying refunds while considering offsets or plan modifications to apply the funds toward prepetition tax claims. The Bankruptcy Court denied the IRS's motion to dismiss the claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a)(3) and 362(a)(6), and the district court affirmed that ruling on appeal. The court held that the freeze could constitute an exercise of control over estate property under § 362(a)(3) and that the IRS's actions or statements could qualify as an act to collect a prepetition debt under § 362(a)(6), rejecting arguments that post-confirmation refunds were outside the estate or that the conduct fell outside the stay's scope. The decision was based on the plain language of the stay provisions and the facts alleged in the complaint, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.

taxesfederal power

The case involves Michael Socha's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Ohio state conviction for murder after a jury trial. Socha killed Edward Edwards, his late sister's widower, during a confrontation over estate property and family items; he claimed self-defense at trial but was barred from introducing expert psychiatric testimony on his mental state and alcohol impairment. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the petition, finding that the excluded evidence would not have assisted the jury on self-defense, that certain claims were procedurally defaulted or non-cognizable, and that the remaining grounds lacked merit under applicable standards of review. The core reasoning centered on deference to state court decisions, waiver of affirmative defenses like intoxication or insanity, and the limited relevance of the proffered expert opinion to the self-defense elements presented.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved plaintiff MPT suing defendants Marathon Labels and Polymeric Converting for contributory and induced infringement of two patents claiming methods for labeling and relabeling reusable containers, based on defendants' Smart Surface Placard product. After a jury found that both defendants willfully infringed the patents, the parties filed post-trial motions including requests for judgment as a matter of law, a permanent injunction, and attorneys' fees. The court granted in part the defendants' renewed JMOL motions on certain noninfringement and invalidity arguments that had been properly preserved, while upholding the jury's infringement and willfulness findings on the remaining issues; it also granted in part MPT's request for entry of judgment and a permanent injunction but denied attorneys' fees. The rulings were based on review of the trial record under Rule 50 standards, waiver principles for post-verdict motions, and equitable factors for injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires state public-assistance offices to distribute voter-registration forms, assist with applications, and inquire about registration during covered transactions. Plaintiffs, two individuals receiving benefits through Ohio county DJFS offices and the organization ACORN, sued the Ohio Secretary of State and the Director of the state DJFS, alleging widespread noncompliance at county offices and insufficient oversight by state officials. The court granted both defendants' motions to dismiss. It held that the state DJFS Director is not a proper party because neither the NVRA nor Ohio statutes impose on her a duty to ensure that county departments comply with voter-registration requirements, and it likewise dismissed the claims against the Secretary of State.

electionscivil rights