In United States v. Parenteau, the defendant stood convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud through loan application schemes, and multiple substantive money laundering counts. The government moved for a preliminary order of forfeiture seeking four key man life insurance policies on which premiums had been paid with fraud proceeds, along with money judgments exceeding $14 million. The district court granted the motion, holding that the policies were forfeitable in full under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) because they were involved in the money laundering offenses, as the policies facilitated concealment of the proceeds and premiums were paid from tainted accounts. The court imposed the stipulated money judgments and ordered forfeiture of the policies without reaching alternative theories of traceability or proceeds.
This case involved two employees of a Domino's Pizza franchise who sued the franchisor Domino's Pizza LLC, along with the franchisee and its owner, for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and Ohio law, plus state-law negligence claims based on the owner's alleged misconduct. The court granted Domino's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full. The core reasoning was that the amended complaint contained only conclusory assertions of an employment or agency relationship with Domino's, without sufficient factual allegations to plausibly establish liability under the standards of Twombly and Iqbal; the franchisor-franchisee relationship alone did not create vicarious liability or a duty of care absent facts showing control or a special relationship.
The case involved a plaintiff sued after defendants reported allegedly harassing emails to police, leading to his arrest and trial on telecommunications harassment charges that were ultimately dismissed. Plaintiff asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state tort claims for defamation, slander, and filing a false police report. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting absolute immunity for statements made in police reports. The court denied the motion, holding that Ohio law extends only qualified immunity—not absolute privilege—to such statements because they are not part of a judicial proceeding.
This case involves consolidated diversity actions by Ohio beer and wine distributors against Miller Brewing Company, Coors Brewing Company, and their joint venture MillerCoors LLC, challenging the purported termination of distribution franchises under the Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act. The central dispute was whether MillerCoors qualified as a “successor manufacturer” under Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.85(D), which would permit termination of the franchises without just cause or distributor consent following the 2008 contribution of Miller and Coors assets to the joint venture. The court granted summary judgment to the distributor plaintiffs and denied the defendants’ motions, holding that MillerCoors was not a successor manufacturer because Miller and Coors retained substantial ongoing control through board appointments, officer selections, voting rights, and operational oversight, rather than effecting a true merger, acquisition, or assignment that transferred independent control. The decision turned on the statutory text and undisputed facts showing that the joint venture structure preserved the original manufacturers’ influence over the brands and distribution agreements.
In Moore v. Abbott Laboratories, plaintiff William Moore alleged that his former employer, Abbott, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 by failing to rehire him for multiple positions after his 2005 termination as part of a reduction in force, and by retaliating against him through harassment and other actions after he was rehired in 2006, ultimately leading to his resignation which he claimed was a constructive discharge. Abbott moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the retaliation, constructive discharge, and most failure-to-rehire claims for lack of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or pretext under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, but denied the motion as to one specific position (Requisition No. 31917), finding triable issues of fact on age discrimination. The case will proceed to trial on that single remaining claim.
In Shugart v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the plaintiff sued his mortgage servicer, Ocwen, along with related entities and credit reporting agencies, alleging that Ocwen misapplied payments on his refinanced home loan, assessed improper fees, ignored correction requests, and reported false information to credit agencies, resulting in denial of a later refinance and emotional and reputational harm. The claims included breach of contract, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy. The court granted Ocwen's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim because the complaint did not allege that Ocwen was a party to the note or mortgage, partially granted dismissal on the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim due to preemption by federal law, and denied dismissal on the remaining claims, finding that the allegations met pleading standards and were not preempted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The decision applied the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, analyzed preemption provisions in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681h(e) and 1681t(b), and allowed limited leave to amend.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
