Sara Elizabeth Lioi

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.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal lawhealthcarelabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Rosalie Fleischer's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, which an administrative law judge denied after finding she was not disabled during the relevant period from 2001 to 2003. The district court vacated the Commissioner's final decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court determined that the ALJ had failed to consider a treating physician's mental residual functional capacity assessment, which prevented meaningful review of whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Under the applicable standards, an ALJ's findings must build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result, even if other evidence in the record could support the outcome.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involves defendant Bridget M. McCafferty, who was charged with ten counts of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 in connection with a public corruption investigation in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Before trial, the defendant filed motions to suppress evidence seized from a search of her private office and from intercepted wire communications, as well as motions seeking discovery of wiretap progress reports and a summary of expert testimony. The court denied the office-search suppression motion as moot after the government stated it would not introduce the evidence in its case-in-chief. On the wiretap motion, the court denied suppression, holding that the authorization orders met Title III's specificity and particularity requirements and that the government's minimization efforts were reasonable under the circumstances of the conspiracy investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves three children and their parents suing the Mathews Local School District, its Board of Education, superintendent, and a bus driver, alleging that the children faced racial, religious, and national origin-based harassment and bullying by the bus driver, with the school failing to address complaints. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the school district as a separate entity (treating it as synonymous with the Board), dismissing the superintendent sued in his official capacity, dismissing all state law claims (negligence, emotional distress, etc.) based on political subdivision immunity under Ohio law, and dismissing the Title IX claim which plaintiffs abandoned. The remaining claims are federal ones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI, as the court found no material issues of fact and defendants entitled to judgment on the dismissed claims due to legal standards for official capacity suits and governmental immunity.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by John Drummond challenging his Ohio state convictions for aggravated murder (including the killing of a child under 13), attempted murder, and related firearm offenses, as well as the resulting death sentence, arising from a 2003 gang-related shooting incident at a residence. The district court reviewed the petition along with the state's return, traverses, and other filings, and after an evidentiary hearing on certain claims, granted the amended petition in part. The court's decision focused on one portion of the first ground for relief concerning the denial of a public trial on a specific date, while addressing issues such as procedural default, ineffective assistance of counsel, and exhaustion of state remedies for the remaining claims. The factual background details the shooting, witness identifications, and Drummond's gang affiliations as presented at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In this employment case, plaintiff Patricia McBroom sued her employer, Barnes & Noble, alleging that she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment by a coworker, in violation of federal and Ohio law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was based on legitimate performance deficiencies documented in multiple Performance Development Plans issued after the complaint. The court denied the motion, finding that McBroom had presented sufficient evidence of pretext, including the close timing between her complaint and the increased disciplinary actions, inconsistencies in the employer's documentation practices, and disparate treatment compared to the alleged harasser. The opinion highlights factual disputes over whether the performance issues were genuine or motivated by retaliation, leaving the matter for trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a contract dispute between JGR, a furniture retailer, and Thomasville, a furniture distributor, arising from a 1990 Gallery Agreement under which JGR agreed to dedicate showroom space to Thomasville products. JGR alleged that Thomasville breached oral assurances not to sell to a competitor (Furniture Land/Baker's) and to assist JGR with credit for multiple stores, and that Thomasville's subsequent favorable dealings with the competitor caused JGR's sales to drop and its business to close in 1993. Following two trials, multiple appeals, and remands on issues including the proper measure of damages such as lost profits and opportunity costs, Thomasville moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed on the remaining damages questions that must be resolved at trial rather than as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland, several Chase banking entities filed a declaratory judgment and injunction action against the City of Cleveland, seeking rulings that the National Bank Act and related federal regulations preempt Ohio law claims arising from the securitization of subprime mortgages, including public nuisance, recovery of foreclosure-related costs, and Ohio Corrupt Activities Act claims tied to neighborhood declines from foreclosures. The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court examined the procedural history of parallel federal and state nuisance actions brought by the City against banks, the standards for facial and factual attacks on jurisdiction, and precedents addressing when preemption-based declaratory relief establishes federal question jurisdiction, while noting that the Chase plaintiffs were later added as parties in the related federal case.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Vos v. Cordray, pro se plaintiff Donald L. Vos sued numerous Ohio state and local officials, judges, a humane society, and private individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights arising from a land purchase dispute, the seizure of his animals, and his prosecution for animal cruelty; he also asserted state law claims and sought damages plus an order dissolving the Salem Humane Society. The district court dismissed the action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that the federal claims failed to state a valid cause of action because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that defendants acted under color of state law or deprived him of constitutional rights. The court further found the pleadings implausible and unsubstantial, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

civil rightscriminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Gloria Lockett and Edward Turner suing the City of Akron under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that police officers violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when officers pursued and arrested a suspect, entered Lockett's apartment in the process, and allegedly pushed her, along with related state-law claims. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the officers' entry was justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing arrestee, that no officer took purposeful action against Lockett, and that the City was entitled to immunity on the state-law claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2744.02 because no exception to political-subdivision immunity applied.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned Saint-Gobain's suit against Xinyi for infringing two patents on methods and components for centering and spacing vehicle windshields. After claim construction and denial of summary judgment, a jury trial resulted in a verdict finding infringement, awarding over $10.9 million in damages, and determining that the infringement was willful. The court addressed post-trial motions for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and prejudgment interest, applying the Seagate objective-recklessness standard for willfulness while reviewing the record on Xinyi's defenses and the reasonableness of requested fees and costs.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Countrywide Home Loans from a bankruptcy court's sanctions imposed after Countrywide filed an incorrect proof of claim in a debtor's Chapter 13 proceeding, due to clerical errors following a short sale that had satisfied the mortgage. The bankruptcy court found the filing reckless under 11 U.S.C. § 105 and Rule 9011, and ordered broad remedies including mandatory worksheets for all proofs of claim, an internal ombudsman, and ongoing court monitoring. The district court reversed the liability and remedy opinions, concluding that the sanctions were improper and directing entry of judgment in Countrywide's favor with dismissal of the adversary complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involves a judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to Jamie B. Ratliff. The ALJ found that Ratliff had severe impairments from ADHD and bipolar disorder but retained the residual functional capacity to work, leading to a denial of benefits. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case, holding that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate and explain the weight given to the opinions of Ratliff's treating psychiatrist under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, including whether observed behaviors were inconsistent with those opinions.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Timothy Baumgardner, who purchased distribution rights for bakery products under an agreement with Bimbo Food Bakeries Distribution, Inc. (BFBD) that included a right of first refusal and termination provisions; after BFBD terminated the agreement and disputed the sale price of the rights to a third party, Baumgardner sold the route to BFBD at a reduced amount and sued, alleging contract breaches as well as tort and quasi-contract claims. BFBD moved to dismiss four of the seven claims and to strike the jury demand. The court, applying New York law under the agreement's choice-of-law clause and Ohio choice-of-law rules, granted both motions, dismissing the tortious interference, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims because they failed to allege an actual breach of contract or other required elements under New York precedent, and striking the jury demand based on the agreement's waiver provision.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a plaintiff who sued generic drug manufacturers, including Actavis, alleging state-law tort claims for personal injuries from long-term use of metoclopramide, the generic equivalent of Reglan, due to inadequate warnings about the risk of tardive dyskinesia. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of federal preemption under the FDCA and FDA regulations, arguing that they could not simultaneously comply with federal requirements to match brand-name labeling and state-law duties to provide stronger warnings, and that such claims would obstruct the goal of affordable generics. The court analyzed express, field, and conflict preemption doctrines, emphasizing the presumption against preemption of traditional state police powers and the purpose of Congress. It concluded that generic manufacturers may use the FDA's changes-being-effected process to update safety information, similar to brand-name makers, and that state tort claims do not conflict with federal law or congressional objectives, as supported by Supreme Court precedent in Wyeth v. Levine and related circuit decisions.

federal powerhealthcaretorts & liability