This case involved attorney Dean Boland, who in 2004 downloaded and digitally altered innocent images of minors to create morphed depictions of identifiable children in sexually explicit conduct for use as exhibits in defending clients against child pornography charges in Ohio and Oklahoma courts. Two minors whose images were used sued Boland civilly under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(f) and 2255, seeking damages for violations of federal child pornography possession laws. On remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, awarding each minor the statutory minimum of $150,000 in damages while dismissing state-law claims without prejudice. The court reasoned that the statutes contain no exceptions for expert witnesses or defense preparation, that the minors qualified as aggrieved persons entitled to the minimum damages regardless of awareness of the images, and that neither the First Amendment nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel provided a defense to liability for creating the prohibited images.
This case involved a qui tam action filed by plaintiff Unique Product Solutions against defendant Hy-Grade Valve under 35 U.S.C. § 292(b) alleging false marking of products. The district court initially dismissed the complaint on the ground that the qui tam provision of the false marking statute violates the Take Care Clause of Article II. After the United States intervened as of right to defend the statute's constitutionality, the court vacated its prior order to allow the intervention but, upon reconsideration, reaffirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the statute improperly delegates enforcement authority to private relators without sufficient executive branch control and that its per-article penalty structure bears no relation to actual harm or profit.
In Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. HY-Grade Valve, Inc., the plaintiff filed a qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. § 292(b) alleging that the defendant falsely marked industrial valve products with an expired patent. The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the qui tam provision of the False Marking Statute violates the Appointments and Take Care Clauses of Article II by failing to give the Executive Branch sufficient control over the litigation. The court granted the motion, concluding that the statute is unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause because it provides no mechanism for the government to intervene, control the litigation, or oversee the relator's actions. The court distinguished the provision from the False Claims Act, which includes safeguards such as government intervention rights and notice requirements, and noted the potential for unchecked private enforcement leading to large penalties without direct harm to the relator.
In United States v. Lojek, defendant Stanley Lojek, an 83-year-old businessman, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery for laundering over $600,000 in bribe payments through his company, Harvard Refuse, Inc., to a public official at the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District over a seven-year period in connection with a contractor's disputes. After calculating an advisory guidelines range of 30-37 months based on the bribe amount, the official's position, multiple bribes, and reductions for minimal role and acceptance of responsibility, the court granted the government's substantial assistance motion and further departed downward six levels due to Lojek's age, health, and the aberrant nature of the conduct. The court imposed a sentence of one year and one day in custody plus two years supervised release, plus restitution of amounts received by Lojek's company, after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors including the need for general deterrence against corruption while finding a probationary sentence insufficient but the full guideline range excessive.
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Myron Priest after his 2006 Ohio convictions on multiple counts of rape, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, kidnapping, and weapons offenses, resulting in a 33-year sentence. Petitioner raised four grounds challenging the trial court's jurisdiction on one count due to lack of jury waiver, denial of a suppression motion for his statements, failure to inspect a police report in camera, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing disparities. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Grounds One, Three, and Four with prejudice, finding they were procedurally defaulted under Ohio's res judicata doctrine because they were not properly raised as federal constitutional claims on direct appeal. The court further ordered the state to produce Officer Bechtel's police report to evaluate the merits of Ground Two regarding the in-camera inspection.
This case involved Ohio borrowers suing Countrywide Home Loans over prepayment penalty provisions in their adjustable-rate mortgages, claiming the penalties exceeded the 1% limit set by Ohio Revised Code § 1343.011(C) and seeking damages, declaratory relief, and class-wide remedies for two proposed classes: those who had paid excess penalties (Class I) and those whose notes contained such provisions but had not yet paid (Class II). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, granted the defendants' motion to strike allegations as to one subclass, and granted summary judgment against plaintiff Ingrid Carr. It reasoned that Class I(b) members faced individualized preemption defenses that defeated predominance and typicality requirements, that uniform damages calculations were not feasible due to varying loan specifics, and that Carr lacked standing because her penalty provision had expired without her incurring any charge and she sought no monetary relief. With no remaining viable claims, the court dismissed the entire action with prejudice.
