Michael Ryan Barrett

This case involves a pro se plaintiff suing Hamilton County officials, including prosecutors, a public defender, a court reporter, and a jury commissioner, along with other parties, over his 2007 arrest and trials on charges of aggravated menacing and carrying a concealed weapon. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fabricate probable cause, maliciously prosecute him, and cover up errors to slander him, seeking millions in damages including for a lost Nobel Prize. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the county defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice because the plaintiff's vague and conclusory conspiracy allegations failed to show any overt acts causing injury, and it dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2006 conviction on multiple drug offenses in Ohio state court. The petitioner argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice by denying his last-minute request to substitute privately retained counsel and continue the trial, leading to a no-contest plea and consecutive sentences; he also raised claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and sentencing errors. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the petition with prejudice after finding that the state courts' rulings were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under precedents like United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. The court granted a certificate of appealability on both grounds but upheld the denial based on standards for reviewing state convictions and the effect of the no-contest plea.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Rosy Blue, an international diamond distributor, sued Edmond Lane and Diamond Showroom alleging breach of guaranty, civil conspiracy to defraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation after a buyer introduced by Lane failed to pay over $4 million for diamonds obtained on credit or consignment. The court dismissed the breach of guaranty claim, finding the written guaranty was limited to an initial $905,713 purchase that had been paid in full. It denied dismissal of the remaining claims, concluding they were adequately pled under Ohio law and that judicial estoppel did not bar them because the prior Florida judgment against the buyer resulted from a settlement rather than judicial acceptance of inconsistent positions.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case arose from disputes over the use of engineering drawings and designs for tissue manufacturing plants, where Spirit Construction Services allegedly provided Jedson Engineering's drawings from prior projects (Cellynne and Lincoln) to Baisch Engineering for a new bid on the Doubletree Project, leading Jedson to assert claims including copyright infringement of the drawings, violations of Ohio's Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract and implied duties of good faith, civil conspiracy, intentional interference, trespass, and removal of copyright management information. The district court addressed nine cross-motions for summary judgment, evaluating issues such as copyright ownership and transfer requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 204, substantial similarity for infringement, access to drawings, and whether facts supported the non-copyright claims. The court denied Baisch's motion for summary judgment on the copyright counts (1-6), finding material factual disputes on ownership and copying, and issued rulings on the remaining motions granting or denying them based on the presence or absence of genuine issues of material fact and applicable legal standards.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns American Financial Group and its insurance subsidiary seeking a refund of approximately $11 million in federal income taxes paid for taxable years 1996 through 2001, based on the computation of reserves for more than 200,000 individual deferred annuity contracts. Plaintiffs challenged the IRS treatment of reserves for two-tiered annuity products under the federal tax rules of IRC section 807(d), which incorporate the NAIC's Commissioners Annuity Reserve Valuation Method (CARVM), the prevailing state assumed interest rates, and mortality tables, compared to Ohio's statutory reserve requirements. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, along with supporting declarations and oral argument, focusing on the proper valuation of the greatest present value of future guaranteed benefits and related adjustments to reserve amounts.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves Ethicon Endo-Surgery suing Hologic for patent infringement of four patents covering vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices used in its Mammotome system, along with a Lanham Act false advertising claim and willful infringement allegations; Hologic counterclaimed for invalidity of two patents. Hologic moved for summary judgment on non-infringement and related issues. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on claim 1 of the '862 patent under the doctrine of equivalents following a prior Markman order, which also resolved the willful infringement claim on that patent, but denied summary judgment on compliance with the patent marking statute for potential damages on the other patents due to disputed facts about whether additional markings on reusable equipment provided adequate public notice. The matter will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a state prisoner who was convicted after a bench trial on multiple counts of theft from elderly persons and engaging in the hearing aid business without a license, based on allegations that he took payments from elderly victims for hearing aids that were never delivered. The prisoner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions and sentence on numerous grounds, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary errors, sentencing issues, and deficiencies in state post-conviction proceedings. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after no objections were filed, denied the habeas petition with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability or grant in forma pauperis status for an appeal. The core reasoning was that the claims were either not cognizable on federal habeas review, procedurally defaulted, or failed to meet the standards for relief under applicable precedents such as Slack v. McDaniel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Ohio convictions for aggravated arson after he set fire to his ex-partner's home. The petitioner raised claims including prosecutorial misconduct, improper admission of other acts evidence, insufficient evidence, and improper sentencing, but the state appellate courts affirmed the convictions and sentences. The federal district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which found the claims either procedurally defaulted or without merit, denied the petition with prejudice, and denied the petitioner's motion to amend the petition as futile. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability or allow an appeal in forma pauperis. No objections were filed to the report and recommendation despite extensions of time.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations opposing the City of Cincinnati's automated traffic enforcement program and advocating for proportional representation in city council elections, who were denied permission to hold press conferences and rallies inside City Hall under Administrative Regulation #5, which required sponsorship by a city official or department. Plaintiffs sued, claiming the sponsorship requirement violated their constitutional rights, and sought a preliminary injunction after holding events outside the building instead. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the regulation's sponsorship rule for the interior lobby and stairs, and denied the city's motions to dismiss. The decision was based on plaintiffs showing a likelihood of success on their claims, including due process concerns regarding unfettered official discretion over access to the space for expressive activities.

free speechcivil rightselections

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Mark Huffman challenging his Ohio state convictions on two counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, five counts of voyeurism, and two counts of pandering sexually oriented matters involving a minor, for which he received an aggregate four-year prison sentence. Huffman argued that the pandering statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, that evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and raised additional due process and other constitutional claims stemming from his bench trial and appeals in state court. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding many claims procedurally defaulted because they were not properly raised or preserved in state proceedings and others lacked merit under the applicable standards for federal habeas review. The district court adopted the report and supplemental report, dismissing the petition with prejudice on the grounds that relief requires a showing of constitutional violations and that unpreserved claims cannot be reviewed absent cause and prejudice. The court noted the petitioner had been released from custody but proceeded because the petition was filed while he was incarcerated.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involved two City of Cincinnati employees who sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the city charter and human resources policy banning them from making political donations or distributing campaign literature for federal, state, and county candidates while off-duty and acting as private citizens. The court granted the motion in part, enjoining the city from restricting voluntary financial contributions to such candidates under Article V, Section 4 of the charter and Policy No. 2.2(1)(A), but denied relief as to the ban on distributing partisan campaign literature under Policy No. 2.2(1)(B). The decision rested on precedents addressing similar restrictions on public employees' political activities, finding a substantial likelihood that the contribution ban violated First Amendment rights when applied to private, off-duty conduct, while determining that the city had valid interests in avoiding the appearance of official endorsement that supported the literature restriction at this stage. The ruling was limited to the 2008 election cycle and did not address solicitations.

free speechelections

The case involved a claim by plaintiff Wanda Godby against Wells Fargo Bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that the bank obtained her credit information for an impermissible purpose after her mortgage debt had been discharged in bankruptcy. Although Godby had surrendered the property in her Chapter 7 filing and the debt was discharged in 2005, she remained the titleholder of record until 2007, prompting the bank to conduct an account review that included a soft-hit inquiry into her FICO score. The court granted summary judgment to the bank, holding that the review fell within permissible purposes under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) and (F) because the bank had a legitimate business need to protect its lien interest while Godby held title. The decision rested on the statutory language authorizing reports for account review or collection and on FTC commentary recognizing such inquiries as permissible even after bankruptcy discharge.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who had been employed by CVS on an H-1B visa and was terminated in 2002; she alleged that CVS failed to notify her and DHS of the termination and retaliated against her for raising visa-related complaints. After the Department of Labor dismissed her administrative complaint as untimely and the Administrative Review Board denied relief, she filed suit in federal district court challenging the agency's handling of her claims and seeking to hold CVS liable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. It held that the INA creates no private right of action in district court for such retaliation claims, that the proper defendants are the United States, DOL, or Secretary of Labor rather than the former employer, and that the administrative scheme provides the exclusive enforcement mechanism. The court further noted the absence of final agency action at the time of filing and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.

immigrationlabor & employment

This case involved a class action claim by Peggy Miller against debt collectors Javitch, Block & Rathbone for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by misrepresenting the nature of a credit card debt as "money loaned" in a state court complaint, which she argued avoided procedural requirements and created misleading implications. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's partial motion, finding no evidence that the representations were false, deceptive, or misleading under the FDCPA provisions, as the plaintiff admitted owing the debt and the characterization did not violate the statute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved insurance brokers who alleged that Anthem insurance companies and various insurance agencies violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to boycott the plaintiffs' Total Benefits Strategy, a cost-saving approach to health insurance that used tax-advantaged reimbursement plans, in order to protect fixed commission structures and prices; the plaintiffs also brought related state-law claims for defamation, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. The court reconsidered its earlier ruling applying the per se rule to the Sherman Act claim and addressed multiple motions to dismiss. It granted the motions, dismissing the federal antitrust claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts with prejudice for failure to meet applicable pleading requirements, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing those without prejudice. Other pending motions were denied as moot, and the case was closed.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved Microsoft Corporation suing individual defendant Mark McGee, who operated as Computerme.net, for distributing counterfeit copies of its Office 2000 Professional software suite. Microsoft alleged claims of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and related Ohio state law violations. The court granted Microsoft's motion for default judgment after the defendant failed to respond to the complaint or warnings, deeming all well-pleaded allegations admitted. It awarded $710,000 in statutory damages, $3,569.50 in fees and costs, and issued a permanent injunction barring further infringement, based on Microsoft's registered copyrights, evidence of willful distribution, and statutory provisions allowing such remedies upon default.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Kahle v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, the plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the defendant mortgage loan servicer after six hard drives containing personal information of over 229,000 former customers, including the plaintiff, were stolen from the defendant's Atlanta office in 2005. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim (the sole remaining claim after others were dismissed by stipulation), denying the motions for class certification and to compel as moot. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff could not establish the required element of injury, as she suffered no identity theft or unauthorized use of her data in the 20 months after the theft, had not placed a free fraud alert on her credit report, obtained credit monitoring only belatedly, and presented only speculative harm without evidence that the information was accessed or targeted.

torts & liabilityprocedure