Algenon L. Marbley

This case is a declaratory judgment action filed by Capitol Specialty Insurance Corp. against Splash Dogs, LLC and Randy Woods seeking a ruling on whether its policy covers claims in an underlying lawsuit for copyright infringement, defamation, and related business torts brought by DockDogs against the defendants. Defendant Randy Woods moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or alternatively to transfer venue to California. The court denied the motion, concluding that the Southern District of Ohio is a proper forum. It reasoned that Woods had transacted business in Ohio and the claims related to those contacts under Ohio's long-arm statute, as previously found in the underlying case, and that the plaintiff's choice of forum and the legal nature of the coverage dispute made transfer unwarranted.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Kent D. Stuckey, as the authorized representative of former stockholders of Internet Transaction Solutions, Inc., against Online Resources Corporation following their 2007 merger. The plaintiff alleged breaches of the merger agreement, including failures to file a timely registration statement for stock issued to stockholders, provide sufficient price-protection shares, submit a net working capital statement, and honor escrow terms, along with claims of common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, and Ohio securities law violations seeking rescission and damages. The court had previously dismissed several claims and, on the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, granted dismissal of the claims for untimely stock transfer processing, late net working capital calculation, and breach related to termination of a profit-sharing plan. The court denied dismissal of the breach-of-registration-rights claim, the fraud and securities fraud claims, the rescission request, and challenges to the plaintiff's representative authority, finding the amended pleadings sufficient to proceed on those issues under applicable Delaware contract law and Ohio tort and securities law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an insurance company's claims against a railroad company for damage to automobile parts sustained during a train derailment while the goods were being transported under a through bill of lading from Japan to Ohio. The plaintiff, as subrogee of the shipper, asserted claims including breach of contract and negligence after the railroad's train derailed. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant railroad and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on damages. The core reasoning was that the bill of lading contained an unambiguous covenant not to sue the ocean carrier's subcontractors, which included the railroad, and this contractual provision was enforceable and barred all of the plaintiff's claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves the resentencing of defendant Robert Shull, who was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841 after his conspiracy count was reversed on appeal. The original 121-month sentence was vacated and remanded by the Sixth Circuit for de novo resentencing. The court examined the history of the 100:1 crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing disparity established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, the U.S. Sentencing Commission's reports criticizing the ratio, and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the ratio to 18:1 and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession. The court held that the Fair Sentencing Act applies to defendants like Shull whose offenses predated the Act but whose sentencing occurs afterward, relying on the statutory text, congressional intent, and precedents from other circuits and district courts.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between the City of Lancaster, Ohio, and Flagstar Bank (as assignee of developer Island Capital) over a Tax Increment Financing agreement that used letters of credit to secure service payments in lieu of property taxes for funding public improvements via municipal bonds. After Island Capital failed to provide a timely replacement letter of credit and Flagstar's credit rating was downgraded, the City drew on the existing letter of credit; Flagstar's counterclaims challenged the validity of that draw and the City's planned use of the proceeds. The court granted the City's motion to dismiss two counterclaim counts for failure to state a claim, granted judgment on the pleadings in the City's favor on one count of the complaint, and denied judgment on the pleadings as to a remaining counterclaim count. The court reasoned that the agreement's plain terms authorized the draw for non-compliance and that its language on applying proceeds to "Debt Service" was ambiguous as to whether funds had to be used only proportionally to Island Capital's share, precluding judgment on the pleadings.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

This case involves current and former Mortgage Loan Officers at Huntington National Bank alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio wage laws for unpaid overtime and improper deductions from pay under the bank's commission-based compensation plans. Plaintiffs, including named and opt-in participants, sought conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA class, court-supervised notice, and protective orders addressing the bank's communications and back-wage acknowledgments. The court granted conditional certification for the nationwide FLSA class after determining the employees were similarly situated in their duties and pay structure, ordered the parties to propose notice procedures, and granted in part the request for corrective notice while denying some requests to void acknowledgments and for sanctions. The core reasoning rested on FLSA standards for overtime exemptions and collective action procedures under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Constance Bennett, a former Medical Programs Director for the Washington County Joint Vocational School District, who alleged that the Board retaliated against her under the ADA by not renewing her contract after she advocated for accommodations for a disabled student in the Surgical Technologist program. The Board moved for summary judgment solely on the retaliation claim (Count II), arguing that Bennett had not engaged in protected activity and that any non-renewal was due to legitimate financial reasons rather than retaliation. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact on whether Bennett's advocacy constituted protected activity, whether there was a causal link to the non-renewal, and whether the Board's stated financial justification was pretextual based on inconsistencies in the record regarding the timing and reasons for the decision.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this trademark dispute, The Scooter Store sued SpinLife.com for infringement and unfair competition, alleging that SpinLife purchased 'The Scooter Store' as a Google AdWord and used it in meta tags to divert customers. SpinLife counterclaimed, asserting that The Scooter Store was attempting to monopolize the retail market for power mobility devices through litigation and had committed fraud on the USPTO by failing to disclose a prior Ohio trade name registration during trademark applications. The court denied the motion to dismiss counts one and two of the counterclaim but granted dismissal of counts four and six, concluding that SpinLife had not adequately pled fraud before the USPTO.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved Dr. Jay Gunasekera, a professor at Ohio University, who sued Dean Dennis Irwin and Provost Kathy Krendl under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his graduate faculty status was suspended without prior notice or hearing following public release of a report alleging he ignored plagiarism by students. He also claimed the defendants denied him an adequate name-clearing hearing to address the stigma to his reputation. After the Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of his claims for injunctive relief and held he was entitled to a public name-clearing hearing, this Court ordered such a hearing and now addresses his motion for interim attorneys' fees. The Court granted the motion in part, awarding $111,815 in fees and $6,423.66 in costs to his counsel, based on the plaintiff's partial success in establishing his due process rights.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves claims by Brandelyn Zar against Mt. Vernon police officers Jason Payne and Justin Trowbridge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations during a response to a domestic dispute call at her home on April 25, 2008. The officers entered the home without a warrant to arrest Zar after a confrontation at the doorway, took her to the ground, and used force to handcuff her, leading to disputed accounts of whether she resisted or punched an officer. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the warrantless arrest claim due to Zar's prior state conviction but denied summary judgment on the warrantless entry and excessive force claims because of genuine disputes of material fact that precluded qualified immunity at this stage.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act following a remand of her Social Security disability benefits claim. The court had previously remanded the case because the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide good reasons for rejecting the opinion of the plaintiff's treating physician. The magistrate judge recommended granting the fees in the amount of $2,156.25, and since the defendant did not object to the recommendation within the required time period, the district court adopted it and awarded the fees to the plaintiff.

healthcareprocedure

This case involves the resentencing of Donald H. Ayers following his convictions for conspiracy and multiple counts of securities fraud arising from his role in a scheme at National Century Financial Enterprises that defrauded investors of over $2.4 billion. The Sixth Circuit had affirmed the fraud convictions but vacated the money laundering conviction and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed a total sentence of 180 months imprisonment by running 60-month terms on Counts 1, 2, and 3 consecutively and 60-month terms on Counts 4 through 7 concurrently, along with joint and several restitution of approximately $2.38 billion. The court relied on the general nature of the remand, which permitted de novo resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), while adhering to the law of the case doctrine regarding the affirmed convictions and the vacated count. The sentence was structured to reflect the remaining counts and to satisfy the statutory sentencing factors.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the resentencing of Roger Faulkenberry after his convictions for participating in a fraud at National Century Financial Enterprises that defrauded investors of more than $2.4 billion. The Sixth Circuit upheld his convictions for securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit those offenses, but overturned his money laundering convictions and remanded for resentencing. Following the appellate mandate and applying the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court imposed 60 months on the conspiracy count and 60 months on one securities fraud count to run consecutively, with the remaining counts concurrent, for a total of 120 months imprisonment, plus restitution of $2,384,147,105.09 jointly and severally with co-defendants.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Benjamin Jackson sued the City of Gahanna, Sergeant Sheila Murphy, and Chief Dennis Murphy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment violations and an equal protection violation arising from two traffic stops, a search, an arrest, and the use of force including a taser during the February 2006 encounter. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims against the City and Chief Murphy, the equal protection claim, the false arrest claim, and the malicious prosecution claim, finding no municipal liability, no constitutional violation for the arrest supported by probable cause from the prior warrant, and insufficient evidence for the other dismissed claims. Summary judgment was denied on the excessive force claim against Sergeant Murphy because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Jackson's resistance and the circumstances of the force used, which a jury must resolve to determine reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. The court applied qualified immunity analysis and viewed facts in the light most favorable to Jackson where video evidence did not conclusively resolve the disputed events.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who purchased real estate and were charged a $199 administrative fee by the defendant real estate company in connection with their federally related mortgage loan, in addition to the broker's commission. The plaintiffs alleged that this fee violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) because no services were provided in exchange for it, or it was duplicative of services already covered by the commission. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that RESPA only prohibits fees that are split between parties and not undivided unearned fees charged by a single provider. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits a single settlement service provider from charging a fee for which no services are actually performed, and that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to state a claim.

business & regulatoryproperty

Dr. Gunasekera, a longtime mechanical engineering professor and former department chair at Ohio University, was suspended from Graduate Faculty Status for three years after a university report publicly implicated him in ignoring plagiarism by graduate students; he sued university officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the suspension without prior notice or hearing violated his property interest in the status and that he was denied an adequate public name-clearing hearing to protect his liberty interest in reputation. Earlier proceedings resulted in dismissal of some claims and a Sixth Circuit remand holding that he was entitled to a public name-clearing hearing while affirming qualified immunity on damages claims. On the motion for partial summary judgment, the court granted relief after finding that Dr. Gunasekera possessed a protected property interest in his Graduate Faculty Status and was entitled to pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to respond, and that the hearing offered by defendants failed to meet constitutional standards for clearing his name.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a Section 1983 lawsuit by Corey Offineer against Detective Roger Kelly and Sheriff Matt Lutz, stemming from Offineer's 2006 interrogation and prosecution for the alleged sexual assault of an infant relative, during which he made incriminating statements while in custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and Offineer filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the Fifth Amendment and state-law malicious prosecution claims while allowing the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability claims to proceed, and it denied Offineer's cross-motion. The core reasoning addressed the circumstances of the unrecorded interrogations, the voluntariness of the statements, the prosecutor's independent knowledge, and the scope of immunity for grand jury testimony.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Dr. Robert Falcone's claim for total disability benefits under a 1981 insurance policy issued by Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company after he injured his left hand in a table saw accident. Although Dr. Falcone had worked as a general surgeon when the policy was issued, he had held only administrative positions at a hospital since 1998 and was serving as hospital president at the time of the injury, with no surgeries performed in the intervening years. Provident denied the claim after investigation, concluding that his occupation at the time of injury was administrative and that he remained able to perform those duties. The court granted Provident's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Dr. Falcone's cross-motion, holding that the insurer's interpretation of "your occupation" and resulting denial were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Samuel Wurzelbacher, known as 'Joe the Plumber,' who sued three Ohio Department of Job and Family Services officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his First Amendment rights by directing unauthorized searches of confidential state databases about him in retaliation for his public criticism of Barack Obama's tax policies during the 2008 presidential campaign, and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by accessing his private information without justification. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed both claims. On the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court held that the internal database searches did not constitute an adverse action because no information was disclosed or misused. On the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court held that no fundamental right to informational privacy was implicated by the alleged conduct.

civil rightsfree speech

The case involves Dr. Scott Kalniz, an Ohio dentist, who sued the Ohio State Dental Board, its members, and staff alleging that investigations into his advertising and patient records were improperly motivated by personal bias, economic competition, and aimed at chilling his First Amendment rights, along with due process and other constitutional claims. The court dismissed the Dental Board itself under Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. As to the individual defendants, the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine and stayed the federal action, reasoning that ongoing state administrative disciplinary proceedings involve important state interests in regulating dentistry, provide an adequate forum to raise constitutional claims, and that federal intervention would improperly interfere with those proceedings.

civil rightsprocedurefree speechbusiness & regulatory