James L. Graham

This case involves a former Mars, Inc. employee who received repeated assurances and estimates from the company and its benefits committees that her monthly pension benefit under the Associate Retirement Plan would be approximately $5,365, leading her to elect benefits and make related financial decisions; after several months of payments at that rate, the defendants notified her of a calculation error due to a programming issue comparing benefits at different ages and reduced her benefit to about $2,200 per month. The plaintiff sued under ERISA and federal common law for breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and denial of benefits. The court denied her motion to amend the complaint by dismissing two counts without prejudice and granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against Mars, Inc. and the appeals committee but allowing the estoppel claims against the benefits committee to proceed, on the basis that the complaint sufficiently alleged the required elements for estoppel in an ERISA pension context given the complexity of the actuarial calculations.

labor & employment

This case involves the Unencumbered Assets Trust (UAT), created in the bankruptcy of National Century Financial Enterprises, suing Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the company's founders in misappropriating funds from subsidiaries NPF VI and NPF XII. The UAT also sought to avoid a $100 million pre-bankruptcy payment to Credit Suisse under the Bankruptcy Code. The court granted Credit Suisse's motion for summary judgment, holding that the civil claims were barred by the in pari delicto defense because the founders' misconduct was imputed to the debtors, and that the bankruptcy claims failed since the payment was on a fully secured debt and thus not avoidable as preferential or fraudulent. The reasoning centered on the undisputed control of the debtors by the founders who committed the fraud and the legal protections for payments on secured obligations.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a nursing center, Vrable IV, Inc., seeking to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of a terminated employee represented by the SEIU union, while the union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose under a collective bargaining agreement after the center fired a state-tested nursing assistant for alleged willful and wanton abuse of residents, which the arbitrator found did not constitute just cause for termination following a review of the evidence and definitions of abuse. The district court granted the union's motion for summary judgment and denied the center's, confirming the award with prejudgment interest but denying attorney fees. The core reasoning was that the arbitrator's decision was within the scope of authority granted by the CBA, which limited review to interpretation and application of its terms without permitting the court to substitute its judgment on the merits. The court applied standards for confirming labor arbitration awards under federal law.

labor & employment

The case concerned whether Credit Suisse could be held liable under Ohio's securities statute for its role as initial purchaser and seller of notes issued by National Century, an Ohio company that perpetrated a multi-billion-dollar fraud on investors. The Noteholders, institutional buyers mostly located outside Ohio, purchased the notes from Credit Suisse's New York office in transactions that closed in New York. The court held that applying Ohio Revised Code § 1707.43 to these sales would constitute an extraterritorial application of state law. It reasoned that the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from regulating commerce that occurs predominantly outside its borders, as the relevant contacts here were centered in New York rather than Ohio.

business & regulatoryfederal power

Lasmer Industries, a government contractor supplying HMMWV parts, sued AM General, Dayton T. Brown, and several DSCC officials after its 2005 debarment from federal contracting, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, deceptive practices, antitrust violations, civil conspiracy, a Bivens claim, and a § 1983 claim arising from the debarment process and related bidding on Army contracts. The defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, and Lasmer sought leave to amend its complaint. The court granted the dismissal motions and denied amendment, holding that the tort, conspiracy, Bivens, and § 1983 claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations that began running upon Lasmer’s placement on the Excluded Parties List in February 2005, while the fraud and antitrust claims failed to state a viable cause of action even under the proposed amended complaint.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case concerns a lawsuit by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, its employee benefits committee, and a plan fiduciary against Wisconsin state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under ERISA. The dispute arose after a Wisconsin administrative ruling required Nationwide to allow substitution of short-term disability benefits from its ERISA-governed plan for unpaid leave under the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act, which the plaintiffs argued was preempted by federal law. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, holding that the plaintiffs had adequately stated ERISA preemption claims and rejecting arguments based on waiver, judicial estoppel, and procedural grounds.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved Konica Minolta suing Allied Office Products and its CEO Jon McCarthy for breach of a promissory note and personal guaranty, an action on an account, and unjust enrichment after terminating their dealer agreement due to missed sales quotas and payment issues; McCarthy asserted a counterclaim for defamation based on statements made during the business relationship. The court granted summary judgment to Konica on the promissory note and guaranty claims, finding them enforceable and unaffected by McCarthy's bankruptcy plan, and on the defamation claim due to lack of evidence of false statements. It denied summary judgment on the action on an account because of unresolved factual disputes over the balance and potential duplicate charges, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as moot. The core reasoning centered on the validity of the signed note and guaranty, the preclusive effect of bankruptcy proceedings, and the absence of material facts supporting defamation.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a former high school student suing the school district, principal, assistant principal, coaches, security staff, dean of students, a local police officer, and the village after her ex-boyfriend assaulted her on school grounds in 2007 and later continued to harass her. The plaintiff alleged that school officials failed to protect her, improperly suspended her, misrepresented the existence of video evidence, and that the officer ignored a no-contact order, claiming violations of her constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment along with state-law claims. The court granted summary judgment to all school and village defendants, dismissing the federal and state claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence establishing any constitutional violations, that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and state statutory immunity, and that no basis existed for municipal liability.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a reinsurance coverage dispute in which OHIC Insurance Company sought indemnification from Employers Reinsurance Corporation (now Westport) under a 1994 Excess Cession Reinsurance Agreement for statutory prejudgment interest and legal expenses arising from a 1998 Wisconsin medical malpractice judgment against an insured physician. The litigation was bifurcated, with Phase 1 limited to contract interpretation of the reinsurance agreement and the underlying primary and umbrella policies; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the agreement covered the interest imposed under Wis. Stat. § 807.01(4) and related claim expenses. The court examined the definitions of covered “losses” and “claim expenses,” the interaction between the primary policy (not reinsured) and the excess umbrella policy (reinsured), and Wisconsin statutes and case law imposing direct liability on insurers for interest on verdicts exceeding rejected settlement offers. The decision turned on whether the reinsurance contract obligated ERC to indemnify OHIC for the portion of interest and expenses attributable to the reinsured excess layer.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an employee who sued his former employer in Ohio state court for retaliatory discharge under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90 after being terminated following a workers' compensation claim, along with an initial breach of contract claim under a collective bargaining agreement. The defendant removed the case to federal district court asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRA and diversity jurisdiction. After the plaintiff amended the complaint to drop the contract claim, the court addressed a motion to remand. The court granted the remand, holding that the remaining § 4123.90 claim arises under state workers' compensation laws and is barred from removal by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) regardless of diversity of citizenship or the timing of the amendment.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

In United States v. McGhee, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from vehicle searches conducted after two separate traffic stops in 2008. The court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that both searches complied with the Fourth Amendment. For the August stop, officers lawfully stopped the vehicle for a turn-signal violation, arrested the unlicensed driver, impounded the car per department policy, and conducted a valid inventory search that revealed drugs and a firearm. For the October stop, the odor of marijuana and visible contraband provided probable cause for a search under the automobile exception. The core reasoning centered on the constitutionality of the stops, arrests, impoundments, and searches based on observed violations, standardized procedures, and established exceptions to the warrant requirement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs, including Lasmer Industries and several individuals, who sued the Defense Logistics Agency and related officials under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge two expired debarments from federal government contracting, one imposed in 2005 for unsatisfactory contract performance and extended in 2008. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing because the debarments had expired and they were no longer listed on the active Excluded Parties List System. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged constitutional standing by claiming ongoing reputational injury and potential effects on future contracting opportunities that were traceable to the debarments and redressable through declaratory and injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Shirley Elkins suing American International Special Lines Insurance Company under Ohio Rev. Code § 3929.06 to collect a $90,113.28 judgment she obtained against Chelsea Title Agency for its negligent failure to file a lien. The defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand, which the court denied after finding complete diversity because Chelsea Title was not a party to the supplemental complaint. The defendant also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of the claim as required by the insurance policy. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that notice sent to an insurance broker was insufficient under the policy terms, which required notice directly to the insurer, and there was no evidence of apparent authority for the broker to receive such notice.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in which client companies (Excel Association Management, G&W Products, and Lineo Electromagnetic) sought to recover funds they had wired to debtor Team America, Inc., a professional employer organization, to cover employee payroll, taxes, and benefits. The clients claimed the Client Service Agreement preserved their property interest in the deposits and that the funds were held in constructive trust, so Huntington National Bank could not set them off against Team America's loan defaults. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the clients retained no interest once the funds entered Team America's general account, the CSA created neither an express nor constructive trust, and the bank validly exercised its perfected security interest and setoff rights. The court found the agreement imposed no segregation or tracing requirements and that the bank's monitoring and setoff involved no fraud or unconscionable conduct under Ohio law.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case is a diversity action in which Scotts sought coverage from Liberty Mutual under alleged general liability and umbrella policies issued from the 1950s through the 1970s for environmental remediation costs arising from pollution at its Marysville, Ohio manufacturing plant. Scotts, through consultants, contacted Liberty Mutual with secondary evidence of policies, notified it of potential claims, and negotiated a lump-sum settlement of past and future environmental liabilities. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the existence, terms, and coverage scope of any lost policies, as well as related evidentiary and procedural issues. It directed further briefing on certain matters, lifted a stay on Count Five, and referred the case to a magistrate judge for a status conference.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Brown v. Ohio State University, plaintiff Katrina Brown, an African-American female former Director of Perioperative Services at OSU Medical Center East, sued OSU and its president alleging discriminatory demotion and termination based on race and sex. The defendants moved for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court granted the motion, finding that objective performance metrics showed the department underperformed under Brown's leadership compared to predecessors and successors, that her evaluations documented areas of concern she failed to address, and that the same supervisor who promoted her also decided her removal, creating a strong inference against discriminatory motive with no evidence of pretext.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves the Unencumbered Assets Trust, created in the bankruptcy of National Century Financial Enterprises, pursuing claims on behalf of subsidiaries NPF VI and NPF XII against Credit Suisse for its role as financial advisor and placement agent in note issuance programs backed by healthcare receivables. The claims alleged included violations of the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, professional negligence, and fraudulent transfers, stemming from alleged structuring of the programs to enable misappropriation and concealment of indenture violations. Credit Suisse moved to dismiss, arguing insufficient pleadings and defenses such as in pari delicto. The court granted the motion only as to the deepening insolvency claim and denied it as to all other claims, holding that the allegations were sufficient and that certain defenses did not apply at the pleading stage.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. United States, the plaintiff alleged that the IRS improperly levied his pension payments through Fidelity Investments to collect unpaid taxes, seeking damages from the United States and Fidelity. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss and Fidelity's motion for summary judgment. Fidelity was held immune from liability under 26 U.S.C. § 6332(e) for complying with a valid IRS levy. The claim against the United States was barred by sovereign immunity because the Federal Tort Claims Act excludes claims arising from tax assessment or collection.

taxesfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs Lloyds TSB Bank PLC and New York Pension Funds suing credit rating agencies Moody’s and Fitch in multidistrict litigation for securities fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and related claims. The plaintiffs alleged they purchased notes issued by National Century Financial Enterprises in reliance on the agencies’ highest credit ratings, only to lose their investments when the company collapsed amid massive fraud. The agencies moved to dismiss, arguing their ratings were non-actionable predictive opinions rather than guarantees of fact and were protected by the First Amendment. The court’s reasoning examined whether the ratings could form the basis for fraud claims, the plaintiffs’ receipt and reliance on offering materials requiring those ratings, the agencies’ receipt of financial data from the issuer, and applicable statutes of limitations and preemption rules under federal securities law for nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

business & regulatoryfree speechproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge by parents of autistic children and their advocacy group to Ohio administrative rules that would limit or exclude Medicaid reimbursement for applied behavioral analysis (ABA) therapy and related services provided by a certified mental health agency. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of the rules, arguing they violated federal Medicaid requirements under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. The court granted the injunction after finding plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, as ABA therapy constitutes a medically necessary service that participating states must cover for eligible children under federal law. The decision emphasized that once a state joins Medicaid, it must adhere to federal standards without characterizing compliance as a hardship, and that early intervention yields public benefits by reducing long-term costs.

healthcarefederal power