Timothy Seymour Black

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

electionsfree 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.

procedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

civil rights

This case involved a plaintiff who underwent shoulder surgery in 2005 and was prescribed a Breg Pain Care infusion pump to deliver local anesthetic for post-operative pain management; she later developed chondrolysis, a loss of joint cartilage, and sued the manufacturer under seven theories including strict product liability for design and warning defects, negligence, warranty claims, and misrepresentation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts and closed the case. The core reasoning was that Breg had no duty to warn of chondrolysis because no scientific literature or other information available before or at the time of the surgery linked intra-articular use of such pumps to the condition, with the first public discussion occurring over a year later; the plaintiff therefore could not establish causation from any failure to warn, and the remaining claims failed for lack of supporting evidence or legal duty.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves the death of Cornell Phillips from fentanyl intoxication while using a fentanyl pain patch manufactured by ALZA and distributed by Sandoz. The plaintiff, as administrator of Phillips' estate, brought product liability claims under Ohio law for manufacturing defect, design defect, marketing defect, failure to conform to representations, along with negligence, breach of warranty, and other claims, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The decision applied federal summary judgment standards and Ohio product liability statutes, analyzing whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding defects present when the product left the manufacturers' control and other elements of the claims.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a dispute between Fifth Third Mortgage Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company over obligations under a title insurance policy issued for a mortgage loan to Anthony Buford on property in Ohio. The policy insured the mortgage as the first lien, but prior liens existed due to fraud by the closing agent, leading to litigation in Warren County where Fifth Third sought to enforce its lien priority. Fifth Third submitted a claim demanding defense and indemnification, which CTIC denied based on alleged failure to follow underwriting standards, and CTIC counterclaimed to rescind coverage. The court granted Fifth Third's motion for summary judgment on both the complaint and counterclaim, finding that the policy's explicit coverage for title defects from fraud and lack of lien priority controlled, that CTIC's defenses lacked evidentiary support, and that no discovery was needed as the material facts were undisputed from the policy language and record.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision denying the Antioch Company Litigation Trust's motion to enforce a Chapter 11 confirmation order and granting abstention. The Trust argued that ERISA fiduciary breach claims filed by ESOP participants against former company officers and the ESOP trustee in Illinois federal court were actually Litigation Claims belonging exclusively to the Trust under the reorganization plan. The district court affirmed, holding that the claims were direct participant claims rather than derivative actions on behalf of the debtors or estates, so they had not been transferred to the Trust, and abstention was proper under applicable factors.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Loreto v. Procter & Gamble Co., plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that P&G falsely marketed its Vicks DayQuil and NyQuil Cold and Flu products with added Vitamin C as effective for treating and preventing colds and flu, in violation of state consumer protection and deceptive trade practices laws. The court granted P&G's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). The core reasoning was that the claims were premised on alleged violations of the FDCA, for which no private right of action exists; plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims under state laws in jurisdictions where they did not reside; and the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support the elements of the asserted claims, as the products' other active ingredients retained their intended uses regardless of the vitamin C addition.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a litigation trust formed under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan suing the law firm McDermott Will & Emery for alleged professional negligence in advising The Antioch Company on an ESOP tender offer transaction, related ERISA and tax compliance, debt restructuring, and potential claims against directors and advisors. The defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that certain claims were time-barred, the assignment of malpractice claims to the trust was invalid under Ohio law, and the complaint failed to plead plausible claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the claims were adequately alleged for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plan's transfer of estate claims to the trust was permissible under bankruptcy law, and unresolved factual issues precluded dismissal on limitations grounds at this stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This ERISA case concerns plaintiff Kathy Holler's challenge to Hartford's termination of her long-term disability benefits after the initial 36-month period, when the plan required her to be unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which she was qualified. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendations and granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that, given the plaintiff's fibromyalgia and related conditions, there was no material distinction between her inability to perform her own sedentary occupation (as previously established) and any qualifying occupation, with no evidence of medical improvement to support the denial.

labor & employment

This case involved a tax dispute between Procter & Gamble and the IRS over the calculation of the research tax credit under 26 U.S.C. § 41 for tax years 2001-2005. The IRS determined that P&G had improperly excluded receipts from intercompany transfers with foreign members of its controlled group when computing gross receipts, leading P&G to pay additional taxes and seek a refund in court. P&G argued that such transactions must be disregarded under § 41(f) and related Treasury regulations, which treat the controlled group as a single taxpayer and exclude intra-group transfers. The court granted P&G's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the government's cross-motion, holding that the statute and regulations require exclusion of these intercompany transactions from gross receipts.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a facial constitutional challenge by G.B., a manager at an adult materials store, to Ohio’s S.B. 10 (Adam Walsh Act) amendments that classify a conviction for pandering obscenity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.32 as a Tier I sex offense requiring registration. Plaintiff, who has not been charged or convicted, claimed the registration scheme chills protected speech and business activities due to the evolving definition of obscenity and local enforcement history. The court previously dismissed a privacy claim and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, granted the defendant’s motion while denying plaintiff’s, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the remaining claims.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights