Edmund A. Sargus jr

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

immigrationprocedure

In Miller v. Countrywide Home Loans, a pro se homeowner sued his mortgage lender, an appraisal company, MERS, and a law firm over alleged fraud, inadequate disclosures, and inflated appraisals during a 2006 home loan refinance, as well as improper practices in the ensuing state-court foreclosure action that resulted in a judgment against him. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under TILA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, RICO, and wire/mail fraud statutes, along with state-law fraud and deceptive practices claims, and sought damages based on alleged constitutional violations. The district court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It dismissed the action, primarily because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal review of the state foreclosure judgment and because the constitutional claims lacked the required state action.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a motion to suppress an AK-47 rifle and other evidence seized from defendant Clifton Jefferson's residence at 855 Byron Avenue during execution of a search warrant. The warrant was obtained based on an affidavit linking Jefferson to a homicide and arson through a DNA match from blood at the crime scene, his false robbery report to police, and his stated address. The court denied the motion, holding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe evidence of the crime, such as weapons or trace materials, would be found at the home, and that the officers' reliance on the warrant was in good faith even if probable cause were lacking.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Jose Trinidad Loza, an Ohio death-row inmate convicted of murdering four members of his girlfriend's family in 1991. The district court had previously dismissed several claims as procedurally defaulted and allowed limited discovery on others; it now addresses the merits of the remaining grounds, including multiple sub-claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court denies relief on these claims, reasoning that prior rulings on related issues (such as voir dire of jurors, admission of evidence, and procedural defaults) show no deficient performance or prejudice by counsel, and that other challenges are barred by precedents like Stone v. Powell. An amicus brief from the United Mexican States was noted but did not alter the analysis.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Plaintiff Philip Charvat sued NMP, LLC and Media Synergy Groups, LLC alleging that 31 telemarketing calls to his home violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), seeking over $200,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that federal district courts lack federal question jurisdiction over private TCPA claims because the statute directs such actions to state courts. The court further found that the claimed damages and fees fell short of the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, as it appeared to a legal certainty that the total recovery would be less.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves current and former Special Investigators employed by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company who brought a collective action alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them overtime compensation, asserting they were misclassified as exempt under the administrative exemption; they also asserted related claims under California and New York labor laws regarding overtime, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements. Nationwide moved for summary judgment on all claims, primarily arguing that the investigators qualify for the FLSA administrative exemption because their work investigating potentially fraudulent insurance claims involves discretion and independent judgment, while the plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the exemption issue and damages calculation. The court denied both motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the investigators' duties meet the exemption criteria, such as the extent of their discretion in developing action plans and evaluating claims, which precludes summary judgment on the FLSA claims and the related state law claims.

labor & employment

Plaintiff Robert Fraker, a former mechanic and head mechanic for the Marysville Exempted Village School District, sued the district and several officials alleging that his termination was retaliation for providing sworn testimony to the EEOC in a co-worker's race discrimination case. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Fraker could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII because they lacked knowledge of his protected activity and there was insufficient temporal proximity to his adverse employment actions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that evidence in the record created genuine issues of material fact as to the defendants' knowledge of Fraker's EEOC testimony and the causal link to his suspension and termination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a constitutional challenge by ballot committees to Ohio Revised Code § 3517.12(B), which required disclosure to the Secretary of State of the names, addresses, and specific payment amounts for paid circulators of initiative and referendum petitions. The court granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of that provision. It reasoned that petition circulation constitutes core political speech protected by the First Amendment, triggering exacting scrutiny under Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, and that the paid-circulator disclosure requirements were not substantially related to important state interests because they eliminated anonymity without sufficient justification beyond what name-and-address reporting already provided. The court found the provision indistinguishable from the Colorado statute invalidated in Buckley and noted that evidence of past fraud or the later Citizens United decision did not alter the analysis.

electionsfree speech

The owners and operator of an adult cabaret business sued religious ministry members, county sheriff's deputies and sheriff, and others, alleging that the defendants conspired to protest outside the business in ways that violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, including by trespassing, blocking access, harassing patrons, and destroying property, while the county defendants failed to protect the business or instead assisted the protesters. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, plus Ohio law, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. The court reasoned that the protests occurred in a public right-of-way and were protected by the First Amendment, that no evidence supported a conspiracy or that the county defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights through inaction or assistance, and that without a valid § 1985 claim the related federal claims also failed.

free speechcivil rightsreligious liberty

In Williams v. Duke Energy International, Inc., plaintiffs sought class certification and brought claims under the Robinson-Patman Act, RICO, the Ohio Pattern of Corrupt Activities Act, and state fraud law, alleging that Duke Energy, a regulated utility, paid unlawful rebates to large customers such as GM in exchange for withdrawing objections to rate-stabilization plans filed with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions, holding that the filed rate doctrine barred the claims because the rates and related arrangements were subject to regulatory filing and approval processes. The reasoning centered on the doctrine's purpose of preventing courts from second-guessing filed rates approved by regulatory bodies like the PUCO, even where side agreements were alleged.

business & regulatorycriminal law

This case concerns whether a non-compete agreement signed by sales representative Michael Alfery with Michael's Finer Meats, Inc. remained enforceable after the company merged into plaintiff Michael's Finer Meats, LLC, and whether Alfery breached it by selling competing meat products to former customers while working for a new employer. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim, holding that Ohio Revised Code § 1701.82(A)(3) allows certain contractual rights to transfer in a merger but that factual disputes existed over the agreement's assignability and scope. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the business from loss of customer relationships, and that the balance of harms and public interest supported enforcing a modified twelve-month restriction limited to competing meat and seafood sales in the relevant territory.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought by Jessie Cowans, an Ohio prisoner sentenced to death for the 1996 aggravated murder and robbery of Clara Swart. The district court reviewed multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, challenges to evidence such as palm prints and DNA, procedural default issues for certain grounds, and the validity of the petitioner's waiver of mitigation evidence. After revisiting prior procedural default rulings and considering limited factual development like DNA testing, the court denied all remaining claims on the merits, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under applicable standards and no basis to excuse defaults. The court dismissed the action in full and declined to certify the appellate counsel ineffectiveness claim for appeal.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage under an executive liability policy issued by Federal Insurance Company to Abercrombie & Fitch for the 2004-2005 period. Abercrombie filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy covers claims from securities litigation and an SEC investigation, while Federal counterclaimed for breach of contract and declaratory relief, asserting that Abercrombie materially breached Section 16 by renegotiating a subsequent National Union policy to be excess over Federal's extended reporting period coverage, thereby prejudicing Federal's subrogation rights. The court denied Federal's motion for summary judgment, holding that material facts are disputed regarding policy interpretation, whether the claims are covered, and whether Abercrombie's actions violated the cooperation clause, precluding judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case centered on plaintiff Frederick Long's claims against Time Insurance (and State Farm) arising from a short-term medical insurance policy that Time issued in 2004 and later rescinded after Long underwent aortic valve surgery. Time denied coverage upon discovering that Long had failed to disclose prior treatment for heart conditions, including a pacemaker and aneurysm, despite the application explicitly asking about such matters and warning that false answers could lead to rescission. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that the undisputed evidence showed material misrepresentations in the application that justified rescission under Ohio Revised Code § 3923.14, thereby negating breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims, and that the negligence and related tort claims against both insurers also failed as a matter of law.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the Libertarian Party of Ohio and its candidates seeking a preliminary injunction to compel the Ohio Secretary of State to place them on the November 2008 general election ballot for federal and state offices. The court granted the motion and ordered the candidates onto the ballot. The decision rested on a prior Sixth Circuit ruling in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell that had invalidated Ohio's ballot-access statutes as imposing severe burdens on First Amendment associational rights without narrow tailoring to compelling state interests; the legislature had not enacted replacement standards, and the Secretary's directive attempting to fill the gap retained similar defects. The court further noted that the U.S. Constitution assigns authority over federal election procedures to state legislatures rather than executive officials, and that the plaintiffs had demonstrated sufficient community support to qualify.

electionsfree speechcivil rights