This case concerns a dispute over exclusive rights to the AMTEL name and marks for publishing yellow-pages directories in several Ohio counties, with Yellow Book suing Brandeberry and American Telephone for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices, common law trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The court granted Brandeberry's motion for summary judgment in full, dismissing all claims against him, and granted Yellow Book's motion for partial summary judgment only on the tortious interference claim against American Telephone while denying it on the trademark claims. The core reasoning was that contract terms showed Yellow Book lacked exclusive rights to the marks after Brandeberry's prior sale of assets, with no genuine issues of material fact on the resolved claims, while certain claims against American Telephone remained for further adjudication.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
The case involved AAA Installers, Inc. and its shareholders Jeffrey and Renee Johnson suing Sears Holding Corporation after Sears changed its bidding process for appliance installation jobs, causing AAA to lose most of its business that had been based on a long-standing relationship with Sears. The plaintiffs asserted nine claims against Sears, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted Sears' motion to dismiss, ruling that the Johnsons lacked standing as shareholders to bring claims belonging to the corporation. For AAA's claims, the court held that the written service agreement's integration clause and explicit disclaimer of any promises regarding the volume of jobs barred contract-based or reliance claims, while the remaining tort claims failed to allege facts satisfying the required legal elements even when taken as true.
William Wagner sued Ciba Corporation under ERISA after the company denied him severance benefits following his resignation. Ciba had investigated and determined that Wagner violated the company code of conduct by operating an outside real estate business, using company resources during work hours, and engaging in conflicts of interest with coworkers who loaned money to his ventures. The court granted Ciba's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied Wagner's cross-motion, concluding that the plan's exclusion for discharge for cause or resignation applied and that Ciba's decision was reasonable with a full and fair review. The case was terminated.
In Burgess v. Fischer, plaintiffs alleged that after Lucas Burgess's arrest for DUI and transport to the Greene County Jail, deputies used excessive force by tackling the handcuffed and intoxicated plaintiff, causing facial fractures and lost teeth, and then failed to provide adequate medical care for his injuries. The suit brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, denial of medical care, and related supervisory failures, along with multiple state-law claims including assault, battery, medical negligence, and conspiracy. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the federal conspiracy claim, state-law claims against the Board and defendants in their official capacities due to statutory immunity, and the tampering-with-evidence claim, while denying dismissal of other claims such as medical negligence. Plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint to remove the dismissed claims and parties, and an affidavit of merit could be filed with the amended complaint under Ohio procedural rules, rendering other pending motions moot.
This case arose from the fatal shooting of Larry Labensky by Dayton police officer Christopher Cornwell during a vehicle pursuit following two robberies; Labensky had fled from officers, crashed his car multiple times, and failed to comply with commands to stop while officers approached on foot. The administrator of Labensky's estate sued the officer under the Fourth Amendment, alleging excessive use of deadly force. The court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the officer reasonably believed Labensky posed an imminent threat to other officers based on his non-compliance, hand movement toward the gear shift, and the car's slight backward movement amid the ongoing chase. The decision rested on the absence of direct evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the officer's perception of danger, and it noted that qualified immunity would also apply. The court dismissed the action.
In Gillman v. Schlagetter, a deputy in the Shelby County Sheriff's Office sued his supervisors and the sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his employment was terminated for posting anonymous online comments on a local newspaper forum criticizing the sheriff's reelection opponent and making allegations about colleagues. The plaintiff also asserted state-law claims for abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the sheriff's office's interest in workplace efficiency and discipline outweighed any First Amendment protection for the postings, that qualified immunity shielded the individual defendants, and that the state claims failed for lack of evidence on essential elements and due to statutory immunities.
