This case involves civil rights claims by two siblings who were minors when the suit was filed, alleging violations stemming from the warrantless entry into their home by police and county social workers and their subsequent temporary removal from their mother's custody based on reports of potential abuse and imminent harm. Following an appeal and remand from the Sixth Circuit, the remaining defendants were Cuyahoga County child services and several social workers, and the court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on the federal claims. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, focusing on whether the emergency removal and home entry without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the applicability of qualified immunity to the social workers' actions, and related procedural requirements under state law for emergency custody orders. Core reasoning addressed clearly established constitutional protections against warrantless home entries absent consent or exigent circumstances, the objective reasonableness of the officials' conduct in light of reported risks to the children, and distinctions between standards for immunity and punitive damages.
This case involved federal charges against Bridget McCafferty, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge, for making false statements to FBI agents during an interview as part of a broader public corruption investigation; the supplemental indictment alleged ten separate violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. After a jury trial, McCafferty was convicted on all counts, and she moved for a new trial, acquittal, and arrest of judgment, citing alleged Brady violations, evidentiary errors regarding audio recordings and expert testimony on judicial conduct, improper admission of co-conspirator statements, and flawed jury instructions. The court denied all motions, finding that the government’s nondisclosure of a witness’s request for mental health counseling did not constitute a Brady violation because the information was not material, that the challenged evidentiary rulings were proper and not prejudicial, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate any substantial legal error or insufficient evidence warranting relief under Rule 33 or Rule 29.
This case is a patent infringement lawsuit in which plaintiffs Rogers Industrial Products, Inc. and J.R.C. Leasing Co. alleged that defendants HF Rubber Machinery Inc. and Harburg-Freudenburger Maschinenbau GMBH infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,442,335, entitled 'Apparatus and Method for Loading and Unloading a Tire Press.' Defendants answered with counterclaims of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. The court held a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms and issued this memorandum opinion setting out the governing legal standards, including that claim terms receive their ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art as informed primarily by the intrinsic evidence of the claims, specification, and prosecution history. The opinion explains the process for claim construction but does not reach the ultimate questions of infringement or the counterclaims.
In United States v. Square, defendant Clifford Square moved to suppress statements made during a post-arrest interview with Detective Alexander, arguing that his Miranda waiver was invalid because the detective did not inform him of the right to terminate questioning and delivered the warnings hastily. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part after an evidentiary hearing. Upon de novo review of the defendant's objections to the portion concerning the interview statements, the district court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in full. The court held that the defendant had waived his new arguments by failing to raise them before the magistrate despite the availability of the videotape evidence, with no special circumstances justifying reconsideration. The ruling thus denied suppression of the interview statements and other challenged evidence except for one interview where Miranda warnings were not shown to have been given.
In this employment dispute, plaintiff Swartz filed suit in Ohio state court against Oracle and Ariba alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unpaid compensation, FMLA violations, breach of contract, wage discrimination, and hostile work environment. The cases were removed to federal court on federal-question and diversity grounds. The court granted Swartz leave to file his fifth amended complaint nunc pro tunc as to Oracle, dismissed all claims against Ariba without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction under Ohio's long-arm statute, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, resulting in dismissal of both cases.
In this case, a former firefighter/paramedic sued his township employer and several officials under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, alleging retaliation for refusing to submit false Medicaid and Medicare claims and for reporting the fire chief's debarment from those programs. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing the complaint failed to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that the complaint did not contain enough factual detail under Rule 8(a)(2) to plausibly allege that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity or that retaliation occurred as a result. The court applied pre-2009 FCA standards and found the allegations conclusory rather than specific.
