This case was a securities-fraud class action brought by a pension fund on behalf of investors against Limited Brands, Inc. and several of its executives, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claimed that during the class period from August 2007 to February 2008, the defendants made false or misleading statements about the development of a new front-end software system through a joint venture called n2N and the opening of a new distribution center for Victoria's Secret Direct, concealing operational problems that harmed profitability. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that the complaint failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, because the alleged setbacks were ordinary business issues, defendants had provided adequate disclosures including plans to reduce sales to protect customers, and the n2N project's failure had no demonstrated financial impact on Limited.
This case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission suing HedgeLender LLC and its principals for making material misrepresentations to clients about due diligence and security in referring them to a fraudulent stock-based loan program, from which the defendants earned commissions. The court granted the SEC's amended motion, ordering disgorgement of approximately $1.7 million in commissions plus prejudgment interest, while imposing third-tier civil penalties on the company and second-tier penalties on the individual defendants. The core reasoning centered on the defendants' financial benefits from conduct involving fraud and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements, with the individuals' documented financial hardship supporting reduced penalties under the relevant statute, and the company's lack of such hardship warranting higher sanctions.
This case involved plaintiff Philip Charvat suing multiple defendants, including DFS Services LLC, Discover Bank, and various telemarketing firms, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act based on 67 unsolicited telemarketing calls received over several years, along with a claim for invasion of privacy. The court held in abeyance the motion for default judgment against one defendant due to the presence of multiple defendants in the case. It granted the motions to dismiss counts two through seven, finding that certain TCPA claims were redundant, that TCPA violations do not constitute per se violations of the OCSPA, and that the volume and frequency of calls did not rise to the level of an invasion of privacy under Ohio law. The dismissals were based on the failure to state a plausible claim under the applicable legal standards for each count.
This case involves a legal malpractice claim by Tattletale Portable Alarm Systems, Inc. against its former attorneys, including Lisa Griffith and Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, alleging negligent failure to advise on patent maintenance fee deadlines that caused the loss of a patent. The court denied Griffith's motion to dismiss, which argued that the suit was time-barred under Ohio's one-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice. The core reasoning was that Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.19(A)'s savings provision applied because the plaintiff's initial state court filing was timely, the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction qualified as a failure "otherwise than upon the merits," and the federal action was refiled within one year of the state appellate decision; the court further held that no narrow exception to the savings statute applied given the unsettled nature of federal patent jurisdiction at the time of the original filing.
Plaintiffs Christal and John Fox sued their former employer Brown Memorial Home and related defendants after their employment was terminated, bringing claims including breach of contract, federal and state age discrimination, slander, and retaliation. The case was removed to federal court based on the federal age discrimination claim under the ADEA. On summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the federal age discrimination claim because Ms. Fox failed to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC. With no federal claims remaining, the court remanded the state-law claims to the Court of Common Pleas for Pickaway County, Ohio.
The case involves plaintiff Anwer Omar, a Jordanian citizen and lawful permanent resident, who filed a naturalization application with USCIS after passing his examination but faced delays and a subsequent denial based on a finding that he lacked good moral character due to alleged false testimony about his prior marriage. Omar sued under the Immigration and Nationality Act and other statutes seeking judicial determination of his application, prompting defendants to move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on grounds including mootness after the denial and pending removal proceedings. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) attached upon filing and was not divested by the agency's later action. It further ruled that the USCIS denial was ultra vires because the agency could not issue a final adjudication without a remand from the court, and it retained jurisdiction to determine the merits rather than remanding the matter.