Jack Zouhary

This case involves consolidated antitrust actions by direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs against polyurethane foam manufacturers, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, raise prices, and allocate customers in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The court ruled on multiple motions to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the standards from Twombly and Iqbal, finding that the pleadings adequately alleged an express conspiratorial agreement through specific factual details linked to DOJ and Canadian competition investigations, rather than mere parallel conduct or labels. The complaints were held to plausibly suggest a meeting of the minds among defendants, supported by references to price discussions and conduct consistent with the alleged scheme. Motions to dismiss were denied as to the core federal claims, with limited exceptions noted for certain state-law issues and time-barred periods. Additional procedural matters, such as voluntary dismissals and discovery, were addressed separately.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an appeal by debtor Shannon Sturm from bankruptcy court orders that conditionally dismissed her Chapter 7 filing for presumptive abuse under the means test of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) and then entered a dismissal order. Sturm had sought discharge of over $51,000 in credit card debt, but the U.S. Trustee challenged her Form B22A calculations, specifically her claimed Local Standards Housing deduction and marital adjustments for her non-filing spouse's mortgage and credit card payments, arguing they inflated her disposable income deficit and avoided a finding of abuse. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's partial denial of the marital adjustment for the mortgage and its allowance of the housing deduction, holding that these required reconsideration under the statutory definition of current monthly income and the Supreme Court's Ransom decision; it remanded for recalculation of disposable income, including the credit card adjustment, with leave to convert if abuse was still found.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Janet Kleinser sued Bay Park Community Hospital under the FMLA, alleging interference with her rights when the hospital ended her light-duty assignment under its Transitional Work Program and required her to take continuous FMLA leave after a work-related injury limited her lifting ability. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on whether this action violated the FMLA, given that light-duty positions remained available but Kleinser could not perform an essential function of her original bedside nursing role. The court granted the hospital's motion and dismissed the interference claim, holding that the FMLA does not require employers to provide or extend light-duty assignments and that Kleinser received all statutory leave protections before her employment ended upon exhaustion of FMLA and additional hospital leave. The ruling emphasized that reinstatement rights do not extend to temporary light-duty roles when an employee remains unable to perform original job duties.

labor & employment

This case concerns two lawsuits by hourly employees at assisted living and nursing facilities against their employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that a company-wide policy of automatically deducting thirty minutes for meal breaks from timecards resulted in unpaid overtime when employees could not take uninterrupted breaks. Plaintiffs sought conditional certification to proceed as a collective action, presenting evidence from corporate discovery rather than individual employee claims, in a procedural posture between the lenient first stage and stricter second stage of FLSA certification review. The court analyzed the appropriate evidentiary burden for this hybrid stage, noting the plaintiffs' top-down approach to showing similarly situated employees through flaws in the policy's implementation, and addressed related issues like opt-in notice language.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved an employer's motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award favoring a former employee in an employment dispute that had previously been sent to binding arbitration under the parties' agreement. The court first addressed its subject matter jurisdiction and determined that the Federal Arbitration Act does not independently confer federal jurisdiction over such motions, requiring instead an independent basis such as a federal question or diversity. Although the underlying dispute referenced the Family and Medical Leave Act, the court found the motion presented a state-law contract issue governed by Ohio arbitration statutes, with no proper federal question appearing on the face of the pleadings and no grounds for vacatur under the exclusive provisions of FAA Section 10. The case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Walters v. Royer, plaintiff Paul Walters sued defendant attorney George Royer for legal malpractice, alleging Royer failed to timely prosecute several patent applications. Royer moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Ohio's one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice. The court explained that under Ohio law, the limitations period begins to run on the later of the date the client discovers or should discover the injury or the date the attorney-client relationship for the matter terminates. Because the parties disputed whether the relationship ended with Walters' May 2009 grievance filing or his July 2009 letters to Royer and the PTO, the court found a genuine issue of material fact on the termination date and denied the motion.

proceduretorts & liability

In Cleveland v. Bradshaw, petitioner Alfred Cleveland filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1996 Ohio conviction for the 1991 murder of Marsha Blakely, relying on a 2006 recantation by a key prosecution witness and other evidence to claim actual innocence. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court concluded that the factual predicate for the claims could have been discovered at the time of trial, precluding a later start date for the limitations period, and that Cleveland had not presented new, reliable evidence sufficient to establish a credible actual innocence claim warranting equitable tolling under Schlup v. Delo.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves the State of Ohio, through its Attorney General, suing GMAC Mortgage, Ally Financial, and a GMAC employee for alleged robosigning of false foreclosure documents on Ohio homes, seeking remedies under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and common law fraud. Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, claiming the real parties in interest were individual Ohio homeowners rather than the State. The court denied the State's emergency motion to remand, holding that diversity existed because the primary relief—stopping foreclosures and providing remedies for affected homeowners—would benefit specific GMAC mortgage holders in foreclosure, with only secondary benefits to the State overall. The decision turned on an analysis of the essential nature of the proceeding and the parties' interests, finding the State's role secondary to those of the individual homeowners.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiff Issa Sobh suing American Family Insurance for breach of contract, claiming the insurer failed to honor policies on properties owned by LLCs of which he was the sole member, due to an agent's alleged theft of premiums leading to cancellations and denial of claims for property damage. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant. The reasoning was that Sobh had no direct contractual relationship with American Family since the policies were issued to the LLCs, not to him personally, and the agent acted outside the scope of authority regarding the fraud, so American Family wasn't liable.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Irondale Industrial Contractors sought defense and indemnification from Virginia Surety under an employer liability policy for an underlying Ohio wrongful death lawsuit alleging that Irondale intentionally or with substantial certainty caused a fatal workplace injury to employee Miguel Cantu. Virginia Surety denied coverage based on the Ohio Endorsement's exclusion for bodily injury intentionally caused or resulting from an act committed with the belief that injury was substantially certain to occur. The court granted summary judgment to Virginia Surety, holding that the exclusion applied because the Cantu complaint's allegations matched the excluded conduct under Ohio law and that the policy was not illusory since it provided coverage for other claims such as negligence or third-party liability.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

Rebecca Schmersal, a former Patient Care Aide at the University of Toledo Medical Center, sued her former supervisor Pamela Major and labor relations director Connie Rubin, alleging her 2008 termination for insubordination was retaliation for two statements she made—one a 2006 letter to the Ohio Board of Nursing describing a workplace incident and hostile environment, and another during a 2008 investigatory meeting—claiming both were protected First Amendment speech on matters of public concern. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Schmersal spoke as an employee addressing internal disciplinary issues rather than as a private citizen on a public matter, so her speech was not constitutionally protected. The court also held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right was violated in light of her documented disciplinary history and their official responsibilities.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court adversary proceeding in which Chapter 13 debtor Andrea Harchar alleged that the IRS violated the automatic stay by freezing automated tax refunds and delaying a manual refund for 1999 taxes while seeking to modify the confirmed plan. The bankruptcy court dismissed due process, Section 525, and plan violation claims, granted summary judgment to the United States on the stay violation claims for both 1999 and 2000 tax years, and denied costs to the government; the district court affirmed all rulings. The core reasoning was that the IRS freeze and refund delay did not constitute stay violations under the Bankruptcy Code, prior interlocutory rulings correctly limited damages and rejected other theories including emotional distress claims barred by sovereign immunity, and the bankruptcy court's denial of costs was not an abuse of discretion given the case's procedural history. The district court also confirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal.

taxesprocedurefederal power

In this case, police sergeant Kelly Thibert sued the City of Oregon, Ohio, Police Chief Richard Stager, and former Mayor Marge Brown, alleging hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1983, and Ohio law, stemming from workplace rumors about her relationship with a subordinate officer, her complaints of harassment, and her 2008 transfer back to road patrol duties. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the hostile work environment and sex discrimination claims, finding insufficient evidence that the transfer was based on sex or that the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims against the City under Title VII and against all defendants under Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02, determining that Thibert had shown a prima facie case and evidence from which a jury could infer retaliation for her prior complaints. The court dismissed the Section 1983 retaliation claim because such claims are not cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns consolidated claims by homebuyers who purchased title insurance through two entities (WB Title and Integrity Title) formed as affiliated business arrangements between Chicago Title Insurance Company and local real estate firms. Plaintiffs alleged that these entities were sham companies created to facilitate illegal kickbacks and referral fees in violation of RESPA's anti-kickback and fee-splitting prohibitions, seeking treble damages. Defendants moved for summary judgment, invoking statutory exceptions for payments for actual services performed and for qualified affiliated business arrangements, while also addressing regulatory guidance from HUD and questions about the vagueness of applicable standards. The court reviewed the statutory text, the specific services performed in the transactions at issue, the ownership structures, and the disclosures provided to buyers to assess whether the arrangements fell within the exceptions and whether genuine issues of material fact existed.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Textileather Corp. v. GenCorp Inc., Textileather sued GenCorp to recover costs incurred in closing hazardous waste management units at a Toledo manufacturing facility that GenCorp had previously owned and sold to Textileather under a 1990 Asset Purchase Agreement. The remaining claims alleged breach of contract and sought relief under CERCLA based on GenCorp's retained environmental liabilities and indemnity obligations in the APA. The court granted GenCorp's motion for summary judgment and denied Textileather's cross-motion, holding that the undisputed facts showed the closure obligations and costs fell on Textileather under the contract's allocation of liabilities rather than on GenCorp's retained responsibilities. The decision rested on Ohio law principles of contract interpretation applied to the APA provisions governing retained versus assumed environmental liabilities.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a lawsuit by HCRI TRS Acquirer against Herbert and Andrea Iwer for breach of a personal guaranty on a loan made to Progressive Healthcare, LLC, after the company defaulted, seeking over $11 million. The defendants asserted three affirmative defenses: equitable estoppel, impairment of collateral, and economic duress. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the first two defenses with prejudice, finding they were waived by the terms of the guaranty agreement, and struck the third without prejudice for failing to meet the pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as interpreted in Twombly and Iqbal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Gem Industrial, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, plaintiff GEM Industrial, a mechanical contractor on an ethanol plant project, sued SunTrust Bank and Paladin entities for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation after the project owner GOE failed to pay $2.2 million for work performed following meetings where GEM sought funding assurances from the defendants. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims. The reasoning was that any alleged promises to answer for GOE's debts were unenforceable under Ohio's statute of frauds absent a signed writing, the statements at issue were not clear promises or misrepresentations of existing facts that could support the estoppel or misrepresentation claims, and GEM's contract remained solely with GOE.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, two African-American men sued three Ohio State Highway Patrol officers under Section 1983, alleging that a traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and constituted false arrest under state law. The court considered a limited motion for summary judgment focused on whether the initial stop was supported by probable cause and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The motion was denied because a genuine dispute of material fact existed over whether the driver committed a traffic violation by crossing the white line, as the plaintiffs denied any such crossing while the officer claimed to have observed it; this credibility conflict could not be resolved on summary judgment in a civil case. The court noted that, unlike in criminal suppression hearings, it could not weigh evidence or determine witness credibility at this stage, leaving the issue for trial.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Timothy Martinez sued the Commissioner of Social Security to challenge the denial of his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income based on his morbid obesity and hidradenitis supprativa. The district court reviewed the administrative law judge's decision, which relied on a vocational expert's testimony that the plaintiff could perform other work, and found that the hypothetical question posed to the expert was flawed. The court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded the case, holding that the error was not harmless and that the record did not support affirming the decision on alternative grounds using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines due to ambiguity about the plaintiff's ability to sit for prolonged periods.

labor & employmentfederal power

In this case, pro se petitioner Niles Scott, a state prisoner convicted in Ohio of four counts of rape and four counts of kidnapping, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition in full. All four claims—challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and failure to merge charges in the indictment—were found to be procedurally defaulted because Scott did not timely present them to the Ohio Supreme Court, satisfying the requirements of the Maupin test for default, and he failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or actual innocence to overcome the default.

criminal lawprocedure