Solomon Oliver jr

In this § 1983 action, plaintiff Rodney Irvin alleged that Shaker Heights police officers, including Sgt. Mastnardo, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by making an unreasonable seizure and using excessive force during a 2005 traffic stop and arrest, when Mastnardo approached Irvin and his former brother-in-law, drew his weapon, and deployed a police dog that bit Irvin after a physical altercation; Irvin also asserted state-law assault and battery claims and sought municipal liability against the City. The court granted summary judgment in full to the City, the Mayor, and police chiefs, finding no unconstitutional policy or custom under Monell standards and no basis for respondeat superior liability. It granted summary judgment in part to the individual officers on most claims but denied it in part to Mastnardo on the unreasonable seizure, excessive force, and state-law claims, and denied it in part to the other officers on excessive force and assault and battery, because genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the sequence of events, compliance with instructions, and whether the force used was objectively reasonable. The court also denied summary judgment on punitive damages as to the remaining claims, noting that a jury could potentially find reckless indifference.

civil rightscriminal law

Plaintiffs Leah Tolbert and Diana Barker sued Coast to Coast Dealer Services, Inc. (CTCDS) in state court alleging fraud under Ohio consumer-protection statutes and breach of contract arising from a used-car purchase and accompanying twelve-month vehicle service agreement that the plaintiffs claimed was not honored. After removal to federal court, CTCDS moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause contained in the service agreement. Following briefing and a hearing, the court determined that the clause was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, was supported by consideration, and was therefore enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act; because every claim fell within the clause’s scope, the court granted the motion to compel and dismissed the action rather than staying it.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a lawsuit alleging a fraudulent investment scheme in which plaintiff Papatheodorou placed $1 million in an escrow account at National City Bank (NCB) for investment, after which funds and profits allegedly became inaccessible. NCB filed cross-claims seeking indemnification from co-defendants Clark and Fortress Group USA, LLC. The court granted NCB's motion for summary judgment on those cross-claims, finding that Clark could be held personally liable because he exercised complete control over Fortress, used the corporate form to commit fraud by providing conflicting escrow agreements and instructions, and thereby injured NCB by forcing it to defend the underlying suit. The ruling also addressed sanctions against Clark and Fortress for discovery violations, including repeated failures to appear for depositions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a commercial dispute between Skurka Aerospace and Eaton Aerospace arising from a 2005 Asset Purchase Agreement and Supply Agreement for aerospace motors, under which Skurka acquired assets from Eaton and agreed to supply products exclusively to Eaton through 2012. Skurka alleged that Eaton breached the agreements by misclassifying orders to obtain lower OEM pricing instead of aftermarket rates, improperly retaining intellectual property and trade secrets, and other claims including conversion, fraud, and replevin; Eaton counterclaimed that Skurka breached by failing to meet quality and delivery standards and sought declaratory relief on its rights to drawings and pricing for cargo conversions. Both parties moved for preliminary injunctions regarding access to intellectual property, inspections, and related obligations. The court granted Skurka's motion in part and denied it in part, while denying Eaton's motion entirely, after applying the four-factor test for injunctive relief and finding that contract enforcement and limited access to drawings for inspections favored limited relief for Skurka without violating regulatory requirements. It also denied a motion to strike a supplemental declaration and imposed specific conditions on the parties regarding creation of source control documents, access controls, and reporting to the court.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs Froom-Lipman Group and its principals suing Forest City Enterprises over an alleged oral joint venture agreement to develop land around a Florida horse racing track, in which plaintiffs claimed they were promised a 15% equity interest for introducing Magna Entertainment Corp. to Forest City. After the court granted summary judgment dismissing the contract claims under Florida's Statute of Frauds, the remaining issue was plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim for compensation as brokers who facilitated meetings and the relationship. Following a bench trial, the court awarded $750,000 in damages to the individual plaintiffs Froom and Lipman, finding that they had conferred a benefit through their services but that the LLC had not. The award was based on industry brokerage commission practices applied to Forest City's contemplated $15 million capital contribution, adjusted upward to reflect the nature and extent of the specific services provided beyond minimal brokerage efforts.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case centered on Studio A Entertainment's claims against Action Software and its owner for copyright and trademark infringement arising from the purchase and resale of unauthorized copies of Studio A's adult film DVDs. After granting summary judgment to Studio A on the infringement claims and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim, the court considered the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505, as well as a request for sanctions against defendants' counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Applying factors from Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., including frivolousness, objective unreasonableness, and deterrence, the court found that the defendants' positions warranted an award against them. It determined a reasonable hourly rate and number of hours for plaintiff's counsel, resulting in a partial grant of the motion that awarded $139,449 in fees and $33,919.96 in costs to the plaintiff against the defendants, while denying the request for additional costs against counsel personally.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Stachurski v. DirecTV, Inc., Ohio residents who were former DirecTV customers sued the satellite television provider, alleging violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Consumer Sales Practices Act, as well as unjust enrichment and improper liquidated damages, after being charged an early cancellation fee of $280 upon terminating service following a receiver upgrade. DirecTV moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the claims pursuant to its Customer Agreement, which contained an arbitration clause and provided that continued service constituted acceptance of updated terms. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, finding the clause valid and enforceable under Ohio law because plaintiffs had received multiple versions of the agreement with billing statements and continued using the service without objection, and all claims fell within the broad scope of disputes referable to arbitration. It dismissed the case rather than staying proceedings and denied the plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim co-lead counsel as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Credit Acceptance Corporation sued to collect a debt from Debra Davisson after repossessing her vehicle under a retail installment contract, and Davisson filed counterclaims on behalf of herself and a class; after the state case was removed and remanded, Credit Acceptance filed this separate federal action seeking a declaratory judgment to compel arbitration of all claims under the contract's arbitration clause. The court denied Davisson's motion for reconsideration of its jurisdiction ruling in light of Vaden v. Discover Bank, denied her motion to stay as moot, and granted Credit Acceptance's motion to compel arbitration. The court found diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000 based on the counterclaims, determined that the broad arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act covered both the debt-collection claim and all counterclaims arising from the contract and repossession, and concluded that all claims must proceed to binding arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves product liability claims brought by Ramona Longs, as executor of decedent Mary Buchanan's estate, against Wyeth and related defendants regarding the diet drug Redux. The court had previously granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that pre-FDA approval claims were preempted by federal law and that remaining strict liability and negligence claims failed for lack of evidence on the adequacy of warnings and proximate cause. Plaintiff then filed motions to vacate the judgment and to alter it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing errors regarding preemption, burdens of proof, and whether defendants properly raised certain defenses. The court denied both motions, reasoning that Rule 59(e) relief requires clear error, new evidence, or similar extraordinary circumstances, and that plaintiff's arguments either rehashed prior issues or presented theories that could have been raised earlier.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerns the City of Akron's emergency motion in district court for a stay pending appeal of several bankruptcy court orders, including the January 2009 confirmation of Akron Thermal Ltd. Partnership's modified second amended plan of reorganization under Chapter 11. The debtor, a regulated public utility providing steam and chilled water services via facilities leased from the City, had filed for bankruptcy in 2007; the plan involved contributions from a related entity and addressed lease obligations to the City. The district court denied the stay after applying the four-factor test from Griepentrog, concluding the City showed neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable injury, that any harm to the City was outweighed by harm to the debtor and creditors, and that a stay would not serve the public interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiffs Omar and Lorna Crespo sued WFS Financial Inc. after the repossession and sale of their financed vehicle, claiming that the post-repossession notice violated Ohio's Uniform Commercial Code and Retail Installment Sales Act by providing inconsistent sale information and insufficient details. WFS, as a subsidiary of a federal savings association, moved to dismiss arguing federal law preempted the state claims, and also sought costs from a prior dismissed state action. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the Home Owners' Loan Act and its regulations occupy the field and preempt state laws regulating the lending activities of federal savings associations and their subsidiaries. Additionally, the court awarded costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) because the federal suit followed a voluntary dismissal of an identical state case.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Parents of an autistic child sued the Ohio Department of Education and related state officials under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, seeking to enforce the stay-put provision after a local hearing officer ruled that the public school district had denied their child a free appropriate public education and ordered reimbursement for private school placement. The parents demanded that the state fund the private school placement during the appeal process, but the state defendants refused, arguing the provision did not apply to a first-tier local hearing. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Ohio's administrative process conducts first-tier due process hearings at the local level, so the stay-put regulation—which applies only to hearings conducted by the state educational agency—did not require state funding or treat the local decision as a state agreement. The court also dismissed the related §1983 claim because no violation of the stay-put provision had occurred.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved Westside Cellular, Inc., a reseller of cellular telephone services, seeking a refund of over $3 million in federal telecommunications excise taxes it had collected from customers and remitted to the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 4251. The company claimed the taxes were improperly imposed on time-only services rather than time-and-distance services. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, ruling that Westside Cellular lacked standing to seek the refund because it was a tax collector rather than a taxpayer who had ultimately paid the taxes. The core reasoning was that, as a collector, the plaintiff neither repaid the taxes to its customers nor obtained their consent to pursue the refund, as required by IRS Notice 2006-50, and it did not qualify under regulations for prepaid services.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Richard Carley filing a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction for aggravated murder after he entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, an unknowing or involuntary plea, prosecutorial misconduct, and an unconstitutional sentence under Apprendi and Blakely. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the petition in full. The court reasoned that Carley had waived his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct by pleading guilty, that his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were procedurally defaulted, and that Apprendi and Blakely did not apply because the sentence was part of a plea agreement that also waived appeal rights.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the IRS's efforts to collect unpaid taxes from Stephen Rogers through levies on payments from an ERISA-qualified pension plan, with disputes also involving his current wife Robin Rogers and ex-wife Barbara Anne Rogers over issues such as lien validity, required consents, and assessment periods. The defendants moved for summary judgment, along with related motions to strike certain IRS declarations and to supplement affidavits with supporting records. The court denied the motion to strike in full, granted in part and denied in part the motion to supplement affidavits, and denied the motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that the defendants failed to show the absence of genuine issues of material fact on key points, including the timeliness of lien refilings, the applicability of tax court stipulations, and whether the IRS could levy on pension payments without spousal consent under federal tax law, which overrides ERISA anti-alienation rules. The court set the matter for pretrial conference and trial.

taxesprocedurefederal power

The case involved a certified class of retirees, their spouses, surviving spouses, and dependents from a Euclid, Ohio heavy equipment manufacturing facility, along with the UAW, who sued Volvo Construction Equipment North America (VCENA) under Section 301 of the LMRA and Section 502 of ERISA. Plaintiffs alleged that VCENA breached collective bargaining agreements, including the 1983 CBA and subsequent agreements, by terminating promised lifetime, fully-funded health care insurance for retirees and dependents and life insurance for retirees. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to Plaintiffs and denied Defendant's motion, ruling that the agreements vested lifetime benefits that VCENA remained obligated to provide. The court interpreted the contract language in the CBAs and incorporated supplemental agreements as guaranteeing these benefits without termination, then ordered declaratory and injunctive relief requiring VCENA to maintain the coverage. Motions for preliminary injunction and to strike affidavits were denied as moot.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case was a product liability lawsuit brought by Ramona Longs as executor of Mary Buchanan's estate against Wyeth and related entities, alleging that Buchanan developed primary pulmonary hypertension and died after taking the diet drug Redux in 1996-1997. The plaintiff withdrew her failure-to-warn claim and pursued only design defect and negligence theories (along with wrongful death and punitive damages). The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on proximate causation grounds, finding insufficient evidence to link the drug to the injury, granted in part and denied in part the federal preemption motion, and dismissed the entire case as a result, rendering the punitive damages motion moot.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Turner v. Grande Pointe Healthcare Community, a male activities leader at a nursing home facility sued his employer under the federal Equal Pay Act and Ohio state law, claiming reverse gender discrimination in pay and promotions compared to a female colleague who received higher compensation for a similar role with comparable responsibilities. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act claim and the state-law unequal pay claim. It denied summary judgment on the state-law claim alleging reverse gender discrimination in employment opportunities, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute regarding whether the plaintiff was denied promotions because of his gender. The rulings turned on comparisons of the parties' evidence concerning job duties, salary negotiations, hiring timelines, and available promotional positions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves William Montgomery's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions and death sentence for the 1986 aggravated murders of Debra Ogle and Cynthia Tincher in Ohio. Montgomery raised forty-eight grounds for relief alleging constitutional errors in his trial, which relied heavily on testimony from co-defendant Glover Heard regarding the sequence of events, gun possession, and the victims' movements. The district court granted the petition, ordering the state to either vacate the convictions and sentences or conduct a new trial within 180 days, while staying the order pending appeal. The court reviewed multiple claims on the merits despite some procedural default issues to avoid any miscarriage of justice. Core reasoning centered on findings that certain trial or sentencing errors violated federal constitutional protections, though specific grounds are referenced in the full opinion.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved a patent infringement dispute in which plaintiffs Ocean Innovations and Jet Dock alleged that defendant Zeppelin Marine's Sport Port Ultra floating dry dock infringed claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent 5,682,833, which covers a method of assembling floatation units into a dock and driving a watercraft onto it for dry storage. After a prior summary judgment was reversed and remanded by the Federal Circuit with a revised claim construction requiring the floatation units to be both airtight and hollow, the district court considered the renewed motion. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendant's product performed each step of the patented method, including selection of units with appropriate buoyancy, assembly using flexible joints, and driving the craft onto the dock so that its hull presses on the units. The decision rested on the claim language, the Federal Circuit's construction, and undisputed evidence that the Ultra met all limitations without raising genuine issues of material fact on infringement.

property