Christopher A. Boyko

This case involved Plaintiff Corbo Properties, Ltd., owner of a commercial building in Cleveland, Ohio, suing its insurer, Defendant Seneca Insurance Company, after the insurer denied a claim for fire damage to the building on June 30, 2008. The plaintiff alleged lack of good faith in the denial, which occurred after investigations by the Cleveland Fire Investigation Unit and a private firm hired by the defendant reached differing conclusions on whether the fire was caused by lightning or was incendiary. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the bad faith claim, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the insurer had a reasonable basis to suspect the owners or their agents set the fire, based on financial motives, building access, security deactivation, burn patterns consistent with accelerants, and rejection of the lightning theory. The court further held that this precluded related claims for punitive damages and attorney fees.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker Intangibles, LLC's lawsuit against Baldwin Filters, Inc. and Clarcor, Inc., alleging infringement of four patents related to fuel and oil filters and filter elements. The court held a Markman hearing to construe disputed claim terms as a matter of law. It construed "keys" to mean projections from the valve-actuating portion without requiring attachment to the annular base or cylindrical portion, adopted the parties' agreed meaning of "fixed to" as "securely fastened to or unitary with," and defined "sealingly bonded to" as "located tightly or securely against by bonding." The reasoning relied on intrinsic evidence from the claims, specifications, and prosecution history, while declining to import limitations from specific embodiments into the claim language.

propertyprocedure

In Reynolds v. Guerra, plaintiff Ronald Reynolds sued jail guards Carlos Guerra and Brian Taylor after an altercation in a holding cell following his arrest for disorderly conduct, claiming excessive force, denial of medical care, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, and negligence. The court denied summary judgment on the excessive force, denial of medical care, assault, and battery claims due to disputed facts about the incident and medical response, but granted it on malicious prosecution because the grand jury indictment established probable cause without evidence of irregularity, and on negligence. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiffs registering a 2004 default money judgment from the District of Massachusetts in the Northern District of Ohio and seeking to execute on it by seizing specified property of defendant Olympiakos, a Greek basketball club. Defendant moved to cancel the registration and quash execution, arguing the judgment was dormant under Ohio law, that plaintiffs failed to comply with Ohio affidavit and notice requirements for foreign judgments, and that much of the targeted property belonged to third parties rather than the defendant. The court denied the motion, holding that the judgment was not dormant because execution had occurred within the five-year period under Ohio Revised Code § 2329.07, that the procedural affidavit requirements of Ohio Revised Code § 2329.023 do not apply to judgments registered under the federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1963, and that further discovery was needed to confirm ownership before any seizure. The court stayed execution pending a limited deposition of the defendant and an affidavit identifying only property belonging to the judgment debtor.

procedurefederal powerproperty

This case involved a dispute over film footage shot by plaintiff Craig Reed of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd in the 1970s. Reed licensed the footage to defendant Freebird Film Productions for use in a documentary under a contract that included an upfront payment and a 2.5% share of net profits, and later assigned his rights to co-plaintiff Survivor Films, which held the copyrights. Plaintiffs sued the Lynyrd Skynyrd defendants for breach of contract, alleging failure to pay the profit share, and for copyright infringement, claiming unauthorized use of the footage in concerts and other videos. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether an express or implied license existed for certain uses and whether fair use applied under 17 U.S.C. § 107, while resolving other aspects of the claims in defendants' favor based on the evidence presented.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Cleveland police officer John Timothy Franko suing the City of Cleveland for reverse race discrimination after he was assigned to gym detail and restricted duty for months following his 2005 fatal shooting of a suspect, which he claimed was harsher treatment than African-American officers received under the city's use-of-deadly-force policy. The court granted the city's summary judgment motion in part by dismissing the Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing the state breach-of-contract claim, while denying Franko's cross-motion for summary judgment and allowing his remaining claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to proceed to trial. The core reasoning was that administrative exhaustion is required only for Title VII, the contract claim was abandoned, and offensive collateral estoppel from a prior similar case did not apply due to differences in timing, decision-makers, facts, and circumstances.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who owned parcels of land that became contaminated by petroleum leaks from underground storage tanks or gas station operations; after discovering the contamination in 1994 and incurring roughly $900,000 in remediation costs to complete a sale to Walgreens, the plaintiffs sued BP (and its predecessor Standard Oil) for trespass, negligence, and nuisance. The court treated BP's motion as one for summary judgment and granted it in part, holding that claims arising from operations on parcel 25 (sold by BP's predecessor in 1965) were barred by the statute of limitations because the torts were permanent rather than continuing and the limitations period began running upon discovery of the contamination in 1994. The court denied summary judgment on claims tied to a separate gas station located diagonally across from parcel 25, because the stipulated facts provided no information on the timing or duration of those operations and therefore did not permit a determination whether the statute had run.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

This case concerns claims by Rainworks Ltd. and the inventor of a design patent for a gutter filter product against Mill-Rose and other defendants for patent infringement, inducement of infringement, breach of a confidential disclosure agreement, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage arising from the manufacture and sale of competing gutter protectors. The court granted the motion for partial summary judgment by GPI, Wilmington, and Duffy on the infringement, inducement, and interference counts, and granted Mill-Rose's motion in part on the breach of contract count while denying it on patent invalidity, unenforceability, and related counterclaims. The core reasoning was that the accused products did not infringe the design patent as a matter of law due to differences in ornamental features, that no enforceable contract terms supported the breach claim, and that factual disputes on intent and obviousness precluded summary resolution of invalidity and inequitable conduct issues.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Rainworks Ltd., a New Zealand company selling gutter protection systems like the Hedgehog, and several U.S. defendants including The Mill-Rose Company, AmeriSales, Gutterpiller, and others over alleged patent infringement of a gutter filter design, breach of a license agreement for manufacturing and selling the products, false advertising, false marking, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability for six counts in their amended complaint. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on key elements such as the extent of harm from alleged false advertising under the Lanham Act, the scope of any U.S. sales or infringement of the patent, and related state-law claims that track the federal analysis. Because factual disputes precluded judgment as a matter of law, the motion was denied in full.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

In this case, Export-Import Bank sued the Keehans on their personal guarantees of a company loan after the company defaulted, obtaining a cognovit judgment in federal court; the Keehans moved to vacate that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), asserting defenses of res judicata from a prior state-court judgment on related notes, laches, and invalidity of the cognovit provisions. The court denied the motion to vacate. It held that the Keehans failed to show a meritorious defense or exceptional circumstances, because the prior judgment covered only separate notes and did not merge or bar the Ex-Im note guarantee, delay in filing was not unreasonable given the facts, and the cognovit clauses in the guarantees were valid and consistent with the arbitration provisions. The court therefore left the judgment in place.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by Felicia Priah, as representative of the estate of Darnell Lester, a cooperating FBI witness who was kidnapped and fatally shot during a failed rescue attempt by FBI agents in Cleveland. Priah alleged negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death by the FBI in the planning, investigation, and execution of the rescue operation. The court dismissed the negligence claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applied because the agents' decisions involved judgment and discretion rather than mandatory directives. It also granted summary judgment to the United States on the wrongful death claim, as Priah could not show a violation of a mandatory directive that proximately caused Lester's death.

criminal lawfederal powertorts & liability

This case involves a Title VII claim by a plaintiff against a volunteer fire department for sexual harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing it is not an employer under Title VII because it has fewer than fifteen employees, with most positions being unpaid volunteers. The court granted the plaintiff's request for discovery on the benefits received by the volunteers and denied the defendant's motion without prejudice, subject to revisit after discovery. The core reasoning is that an antecedent inquiry into whether the volunteers received significant direct or indirect remuneration is required to determine employee status under Title VII, and this fact-intensive issue must be explored through discovery before applying other employment tests.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act by Joseph Simcox seeking the return of four children allegedly wrongfully removed from Mexico to the United States by his estranged wife Claire Simcox. The court determined that Mexico was the children's habitual residence and that the removal was wrongful, but it granted the petition only in part. It ordered the return of the two younger children (DS and SS) to Mexico for custody proceedings there, subject to conditions protecting their safety, while denying return of the two older children (PS and CS) based on their mature objections to returning and expressed fears. The court reasoned that it lacked authority to decide custody on the merits and that the older children's age and maturity allowed application of the child's objection defense under the Convention, while the respondent failed to establish other defenses for the younger children.

family lawfederal power

This case involves a motion by the named plaintiffs in a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Co. to file a second amended complaint substituting new class representatives. The Barnes plaintiffs sought substitution because they faced probate court litigation alleging fraud in the deed to the property they refinanced, raising doubts about their ability to adequately represent the class. The court denied the motion, holding that amendment under Rule 15 was inappropriate where it would effectively dismiss the current plaintiffs without the defendant's stipulation as required by Rule 41 given the pending answer and counterclaims, that the proposed new plaintiffs were not parties and their claims did not relate back, and that substitution of class representatives by amendment is not permitted prior to class certification when standing concerns exist.

procedure

In Boustani v. Blackwell, plaintiffs challenged amendments to Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.20(A) that permitted election judges to question voters about their citizenship status, birthplace, and documentation, requiring naturalized citizens to produce naturalization certificates to cast a regular ballot or else receive a provisional ballot. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, upon agreement of the parties and its independent determination, issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of subsections (A)(2), (3), and (4) and the following text, while directing the Secretary of State to issue guidance and notices to election boards. The court reasoned that the provisions imposed an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote of naturalized citizens, effected disparate treatment violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and risked operating as an unconstitutional poll tax through fees for replacement certificates, while lacking standards that could enable profiling or embarrassment at polling places.

electionscivil rights

In Zaremba v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co., the plaintiff homeowner sued the defendant window and door manufacturer alleging breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and seeking a declaratory judgment that the limited warranty was unconscionable, after products purchased in 1994-1995 and installed in his seasonal residence began showing rot and decay in 2002. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court found a factual dispute existed over whether the one-year or ten-year warranty applied but held that the warranty's limitations on remedies were enforceable under Ohio law, did not fail of their essential purpose because Marvin offered replacements, and were not unconscionable; it further declined to issue declaratory relief because the plaintiff's other claims provided adequate remedies.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendant Michael Wheaton, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine; he moved for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct when one juror used a personal computer to play admitted audio evidence for the jury and to research distances between cities during deliberations. The court denied the motion, holding that the interest of justice did not require a new trial. The judge questioned the juror and the full jury, who confirmed they had not been influenced by the extraneous information, had followed instructions against independent research, and reached a unanimous verdict after overnight adjournment. The court emphasized its broad discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and found no resulting bias or due process violation from the misconduct.

criminal lawprocedure

In Vintilla v. Safeco Insurance, the plaintiff sued her auto insurer after it settled a third-party claim arising from a 2000 traffic accident in which she was cited but not convicted, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and a due process violation because no court had established her legal responsibility. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion. It held that the insurance policy expressly authorized the insurer to settle claims within policy limits as it deemed appropriate, that settled Ohio precedent barred a bad-faith claim for such settlements, and that the insurer's private conduct did not implicate due-process protections.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

In this case, telecommunications company MCI sued construction firm Brode after Brode severed MCI's underground fiber optic cables during bridge repair excavation, causing temporary cable damage but no customer service outages due to MCI's automatic ring redundancy system. MCI asserted claims for trespass, negligence (including per se), breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, and punitive damages. The court granted Brode summary judgment on the trespass, breach of contract, negligence per se, and punitive damages claims, finding insufficient evidence of actual harm, contractual privity issues, statutory violations meeting the standard, and malice under Ohio law. It denied both parties' motions on the core negligence and contributory negligence claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Richard Schwartz, his wife, and their corporation seeking reimbursement under homeowners and business insurance policies for over $1.6 million in legal fees and expenses incurred from 1992 to 1998 across multiple lawsuits, including a shareholder derivative action against a former partner, antitrust claims against a hospital, eviction proceedings, and related state claims. The defendants, insurance companies including Transcontinental (CNA) and Chubb affiliates, moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of coverage. The court granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion, holding that the policies did not provide coverage because the underlying claims were not within the policy periods, notice of the claims was untimely under the policies' requirements for prompt or immediate notice, the suits sought coverage for prosecuting claims rather than defending against them, and the plaintiffs failed to bring legal action within the policies' two-year limitation periods.

business & regulatoryprocedure