Michael H. Watson

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.

criminal law

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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

Plaintiffs Louis Simmons and Tee and Ell Weight Lifting and Exercise Enterprises, Inc. sued Defendants John Cook and Evolve, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,491,607 covering an exercise machine, along with federal trademark infringement, dilution, false advertising, and related claims involving the marks LOUIE SIMMONS, WESTSIDE BARBELL, and REVERSE HYPER, plus Ohio trademark, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract claims. Defendants filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent and marks, plus abuse of process. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all patent-related claims but denied summary judgment as to the trademark-related claims. The decision on patents rested on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact supporting infringement, while the trademark claims proceeded due to disputed facts regarding use of the marks in connection with Defendants' competing residential exercise device.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved antitrust claims brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Plavix against its manufacturers Sanofi and the first generic applicant Apotex. Plaintiffs alleged that agreements between the defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by preventing a competitive arrangement that would have allowed earlier generic market entry and lower prices. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that the complaints failed to adequately allege an antitrust injury that was causally linked to the claimed illegal conduct, as required under precedents like Hodges v. W. Pub. Co.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved Kristen Reinwald's claim against her former employer, Huntington National Bank, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging that the bank interfered with her rights by terminating her employment after she sought leave for pain from endometriosis. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Reinwald failed to create a genuine issue of material fact showing her June 13, 2006 absence was protected FMLA leave, as the bank had no record of her calls, she did not mention her medical condition at the termination meeting, and she had received prior discipline for unrelated attendance and performance issues.

labor & employment

This case involved a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions stemming from an armed robbery at a drug dealer's residence. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal after finding that numerous claims were procedurally defaulted without a showing of cause and prejudice, that other claims were not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated actual innocence. The District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, as no objections were filed, resulting in dismissal of the action. The reasoning centered on application of procedural default rules under Coleman and Maupin, the limited scope of federal review of state post-conviction proceedings, and the absence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case is a consolidated putative shareholder class action brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, in which purchasers of Huntington Bancshares stock during July to November 2007 alleged that the company and its executives issued materially false and misleading statements about Huntington's exposure to subprime mortgages arising from its acquisition of Sky Financial Group and Sky's relationship with Franklin Credit Management. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The decision rested on the conclusion that the complaint failed to plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, including insufficient allegations regarding the individual defendants' knowledge or recklessness about the risks at the time of the statements.

business & regulatory

In Ferron v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, plaintiff John Ferron, an attorney who collects email advertisements to sue under consumer protection laws, brought claims against EchoStar and E-Management under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and the Ohio Electronic Mail Advertising Act, alleging that emails advertising Dish Network satellite services contained deceptive price quotes and offers. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Ferron could not prevail on his OCSPA claims because he had prior knowledge of the actual terms and conditions from contacting Dish Network call centers, making it impossible for him to be deceived by the emails. Additional grounds included EchoStar's lack of direct involvement or benefit from the third-party emails and Ferron's preexisting consent to receive the advertisements under the EMAA.

business & regulatory

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging his sentence and convictions. Petitioner raised a claim that his maximum and consecutive sentences violated Blakely v. Washington because they were based on judicial fact-finding not admitted by the defendant or found by the jury, and a separate double jeopardy claim regarding his convictions. The magistrate judge recommended conditionally granting relief on the Blakely claim due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and dismissing the double jeopardy claim. Overruling the state's objections, the district court adopted the recommendation, finding that the trial court had relied on impermissible judicial findings, that counsel's failure to raise Blakely met the Strickland standard, and that the double jeopardy claim lacked merit under clearly established federal law. The court vacated the sentence and ordered release unless the state resentenced the petitioner within sixty days.

criminal lawprocedure

In this tax refund case, Procter & Gamble and its FSC subsidiary sought to recover taxes paid on an FSC Advance Payment Transaction by calculating combined taxable income using the gross receipts method rather than arm's-length pricing. The court had previously ruled that the plaintiffs' original calculation violated administrative pricing rules and now considered whether plaintiffs could alternatively claim deductions under the gross receipts method. The court denied the request, holding that the doctrine of variance barred the claim because the gross receipts method was not specifically raised in the administrative refund claim filed by the proper taxpayer, and the government did not waive the requirement by advancing a related but more developed argument at trial. The decision emphasized that refund claims must provide detailed grounds to the IRS to allow administrative correction and limit litigation scope.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in which plaintiff Todd Embs alleges that defendants Jordan Outdoor Enterprises and others infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,727,253 and 5,924,131, both titled 'Process for Designing Camouflage Clothing.' The patents describe a method of creating realistic camouflage by imprinting aligned portions of a single photographic image of a natural scene across multiple garments so the image appears continuous and to scale when worn. The court conducted claim construction and held that the patents do not encompass camouflage patterns that repeat within the system; it interpreted disputed terms, including the requirement that 'the scene is reproduced both vertically and horizontally,' to mean the camouflage system must mirror the entire scene without repetition, based on the claim language, specification, and prosecution history distinguishing prior art.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner Noland challenging his Ohio state sentence for rape. The Magistrate Judge recommended conditionally granting the petition on the ground that the sentence violated Blakely v. Washington because it relied on judicial fact-finding to impose a term beyond the presumptive range. The court found Blakely applicable since Noland's direct appeal was pending when Blakely was decided, the claim was not procedurally defaulted as Apprendi did not require raising it earlier, and Ohio's post-Foster sentencing regime required re-sentencing to cure the error. Respondent's objections regarding retroactivity, default, and harmless error were rejected as the cited cases were distinguishable.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an Ohio water equipment manufacturer suing a Florida dealer and his company for federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and state-law breach of contract after terminating their 2003 dealer agreement for failing to meet sales quotas. The defendant had previously sued in Florida state court, but that action was dismissed based on the agreement's forum-selection clause designating Ohio courts; the plaintiff then filed here and sought injunctive relief. The defendant moved to dismiss or transfer the case on grounds including Colorado River abstention, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and forum non conveniens, or alternatively to stay pending the Florida proceedings. The court granted the motion only in part by dismissing the punitive-damages request on the Lanham Act claim and denied the rest, holding that the forum-selection clause is enforceable, personal jurisdiction exists, abstention is unwarranted, and both public and private interest factors favor keeping the case in Ohio. It also noted the parties had settled the injunctive portion of the trademark claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This trademark and franchise dispute involved Damon’s Restaurants, Inc. alleging that defendants Eileen K Inc. and related entities breached multiple franchise agreements by failing to pay royalties and fees, submit required reports, and comply with operational standards at two restaurant locations, while defendants asserted counterclaims including wrongful termination and breach of good faith. The court conducted a de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the plaintiff’s motions for contempt and a preliminary injunction. It overruled objections from both parties and adopted the report, granting the motion for contempt based on findings of violations of prior agreed orders and imposing sanctions, while denying the preliminary injunction without prejudice if defendants satisfy the contempt sanctions. The decision rested on evidentiary hearing testimony confirming the breaches and the lack of credible excuses for noncompliance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a city employee who sued her employer under the FMLA for interfering with her intermittent leave rights by requiring recertification of her permanent herniated disk condition every thirty days and for terminating her after she took additional medical leave in 2004, claiming she had been told she had sufficient leave remaining; she also asserted state-law claims for disability discrimination and retaliation. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. It dismissed the recertification claim, finding the employer's practice permissible under FMLA regulations, but denied summary judgment on the termination claim because factual disputes existed regarding whether the employee received proper notice of leave exhaustion and whether equitable estoppel applied due to the employer's alleged representation that leave was available. The court also retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims since the federal FMLA interference claim survived.

labor & employmenthealthcarecivil rights

This case involved news organizations challenging Ohio election officials' directives and loitering statutes that restricted exit polling to areas more than 100 feet from polling places on election days. Plaintiffs argued the restrictions violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech by preventing accurate data collection from voters. The court granted partial summary judgment to both sides, ruling that the directives and statutes could not be applied to ban exit polling within the 100-foot zone. The core reasoning was that exit polling constitutes protected speech, the 100-foot buffer was not sufficiently justified as necessary to prevent disruption or ensure access, and less restrictive alternatives existed while still serving election integrity interests.

electionsfree speech