The case involved the City of Broadview Heights seeking indemnification from insurer Scottsdale Indemnity Company for a settlement paid in a civil rights lawsuit filed by XXL of Ohio, Inc., which challenged the city's enforcement of its sign ordinance against nonconforming pole signs at a motel, as well as a ruling that Scottsdale had a duty to defend the city. The court granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment and denied the city's, finding no coverage or duty to defend. The decision rested on the policy's exclusion for claims arising from public officials' wrongful acts that occurred before the policy period when the insured had knowledge of circumstances reasonably expected to give rise to a claim.
This case involved a business, XXL of Ohio, Inc., challenging the City of Broadview Heights' sign ordinance after the city removed a pole sign, claiming violations of the First Amendment through content-based restrictions on commercial and non-commercial speech, prior restraint, equal protection, due process, and vagueness. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims that the ordinance unconstitutionally restricted and discriminated against non-commercial speech by content, discriminated against commercial speech by content, imposed an impermissible prior restraint, made content-based distinctions via the pole sign prohibition, and violated procedural due process in the sign's removal. It granted the defendants' motion on the equal protection claim regarding the ordinance's application and partial summary judgment on vagueness and facial equal protection issues, while denying summary judgment on remaining claims and declining to invalidate the ordinance entirely or order legislative changes. The core reasoning was that the ordinance's provisions created unconstitutional content-based distinctions and restraints under applicable First Amendment standards, but the law was not clearly established at the time to deny qualified immunity to the mayor and city council members, and alterations to the ordinance were left to the legislative body.
This case concerned non-citizen plaintiffs of Arab descent who voluntarily registered under the 2002 Special Registration Procedure and were then placed in removal proceedings because their prior immigration status had expired. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to halt removals and the registration program, declaratory relief on discrimination grounds, habeas corpus for alleged unlawful detention, and damages under the Tucker Act and EAJA. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the injunctive and declaratory claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the habeas claim for failure to state a viable claim, and most damages claims, while allowing one plaintiff's Tucker Act damages claim to proceed. The core reasoning was that the Immigration and Nationality Act bars judicial review of decisions to commence removal proceedings and that the plaintiffs had not established a basis for the requested relief under the cited statutes.
This case is a consolidated securities litigation against Century Business Services under federal securities laws. The court granted the remaining plaintiffs' stipulation appointing lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and liaison counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, after having denied prior motions on the issue. It determined that the stipulation satisfied the Act's requirements for such appointments. The order established deadlines for an amended complaint, any motions to dismiss, and related briefing, stayed discovery during the pendency of dismissal motions, and dismissed six subsequently filed consolidated cases without prejudice.
