This case involves a dispute over a $3 million promissory note issued by ITS Financial, LLC to NovaStar Financial, Inc., along with an associated security agreement pledging accounts receivable as collateral and personal guaranties from ITS's principals. After ITS failed to make required interest payments and the note matured in March 2010, NovaStar sought partial summary judgment on claims for breach of the note, declaratory relief regarding its security interest, breach of the security agreement (including ITS's interference with collection of a specific account owed by a third party), and breach of the guaranties. ITS and the guarantors opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that a subordination agreement with another creditor (Fifth Third Bank) barred enforcement and that they had a right of set-off. The court granted NovaStar's motions and denied the opposing motions, holding that ITS defaulted on its payment obligations, that the subordination agreement could not be enforced by ITS or the guarantors to defeat NovaStar's claims, and that the guarantors remained liable under their unconditional guaranties.
This case arose when plaintiffs Susan B. Anthony List and COAST sought to disseminate statements criticizing a congressman's vote on federal health care legislation as supporting taxpayer-funded abortion, prompting the congressman to file complaints with the Ohio Election Commission alleging violations of state false-statement laws. After the Commission found probable cause to proceed but later dismissed the complaints following the election and the congressman's withdrawal, the plaintiffs pursued federal claims against the Commission challenging the laws on First Amendment grounds and seeking to prevent future enforcement. The court granted the Commission's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It reasoned that the dispute was moot because the underlying administrative proceedings had terminated without any finding of a violation, and the plaintiffs failed to establish standing or a credible threat of imminent future enforcement for their planned 2012 or other speech.
This case is an appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio in an adversary proceeding filed by a trustee against Wayne Wheat and the House of Wheat Funeral Home. The appellants, after their counsel withdrew, failed to participate in pretrial conferences, discovery, or file required statements, and when counsel reappeared shortly before trial without properly updating contact information in the court's electronic system, they did not appear for the scheduled trial, resulting in a default judgment. The bankruptcy court denied their motion to set aside the judgment, and the district court affirmed, finding that the appellants had received adequate notice through mailed orders and that their procedural failures justified the default without excusable neglect.
This case involves a consumer lawsuit against Procter & Gamble alleging that the company made false and misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of its Align probiotic supplement in advertising and labeling. The plaintiff brought claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty, asserting that the product's benefits were not clinically proven as advertised. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, analyzing the sufficiency of the pleadings under federal rules, potential preemption issues under federal law, and whether the claims stated viable causes of action. The core reasoning focused on whether the plaintiff's allegations adequately pleaded falsity and reliance, while dismissing certain claims that improperly sought to enforce federal regulations privately.
This case involved a widow's claim for accidental death benefits under an insurance policy after her husband died from methadone intoxication. The policy excluded coverage for losses resulting directly or indirectly from the non-prescribed use of narcotics, and the insurer denied the claim on that basis. The plaintiff argued that her husband had accidentally ingested her prescribed methadone in the dark, mistaking it for his own medication, and thus the exclusion did not apply. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and bad faith claims, holding that the policy language unambiguously barred benefits where death resulted from use of a non-prescribed narcotic regardless of intent. The decision rested on the plain terms of the policy limitations and the undisputed facts of the death.
This case is an appeal under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in which the parent of a student with multiple disabilities challenged the school district's provision of special education services. The Impartial Hearing Officer had found that the district committed procedural violations by predetermining services, failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and ordered remedies including private placement and compensatory therapy; the State Level Review Officer reversed those findings. The court granted the parent's motion for summary judgment and denied the district's, thereby reinstating the IHO decision. The reasoning centered on the district's failure to consider outside evaluations, resulting in inadequate speech and occupational therapy as well as insufficient behavioral supports that denied the student educational benefit.
