Case law

Moody v. Kaczmrek

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2024

While Moody’s reliance on these new assertions is understandable in the face of his clearly deficient Complaint, it is well-settled that “[p]laintiffs cannot . . . amend their complaint in an opposition brief or ask the … Though Moody has arguably set forth sufficient facts to establish the first element of his claim against Fulton, he still falls short of his burden.

Hulsing Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Fazio Mechanical Services, Inc., et al.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 19, 2025

An expert witness must establish his expertise by reference to “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” in order to qualify as an expert under Rule 702. … Evid. 702 as establishing “a standard of evidentiary reliability”).

Gamble v. Marc's Corporate Office

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 2019

Plaintiff's allegations clearly do not 2- | pertain to discrimination in employment; accordingly, he has asserted no plausible claim under either Title VII or Title I of the ADA. … The plaintiffs complaint does not allege facts sufficient to establish a prima facie claim.

Crish

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 2026

Ohio 2008) (declining to address officer’s qualified immunity arguments because the excessive force claim was barred by Heck). The Court finds the same approach appropriate here. … Thus, Plaintiff was clearly aware of the search in 2015. See Bingham v. Ohio, 2021 WL 857093, at *4 (N.D.

Davis v. Avco Corporation

371 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1974

This count also clearly states a claim. See Emmi v. First Manufacturer’s Nat. Bank, 336 F.Supp. 629 (D.Me. 1971); and Thiele v. Shields, 131 F.Supp. 416 (S.D.N.Y.1955). … [This subcliapter] reaches the novel, uncommon or irregular devices if it is proved that they are widely offered or dealt in under terms or courses of dealing which established their character in commerce as investment contracts

Howe v. Hull

873 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 1994

There are three criteria plaintiff must meet in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA: a) the plaintiff has a disability; b) the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff; c) the discrimination … Clearly, where the disability and the medical condition for which treatment is sought are unrelated, the health care provider may not properly consider the disability in referring the patient elsewhere.

Budish v. Gordon

784 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 1992

To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.” Id. at 1287 . The Court made it clear in Feist that meeting the test of originality is not difficult. … The balance of the equities in the present case clearly favors granting the injunction.

LM Insurance Corp. v. Szuhay

222 F. Supp. 3d 558 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2016

This is particularly true when considering provisions that purport to limit or qualify coverage under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ohio St.3d 540 , 948 N.E.2d 931 , 935 (Ohio 2011). … [O]nce the insurer establishes that an exclusion is applicable, the burden shifts back to the insured to establish the applicability of an exception to the exclusion. Goodrich Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins.

Garner v. Lambert

558 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 22, 2008

They also qualify as material under any reasonable understanding of that term. … By establishing violations of the GCA, the records constitute part of the basis for revoking Garner’s FFL.

Murphy v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 17, 2024

.; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims against John Doe fail; and (5) Plaintiffs’ negligence against CoreCivic, Inc. is subject to dismissal via immunity in Am. Sub. H.B. 606. … for immunity pursuant to Am.

Cranpark, Inc. v. Rogers Group, Inc.

721 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2010

The “community of interest” element is clearly missing in the case at bar. … Stump clearly was not either. Thus, the foregoing quote from Mr. Stump’s deposition does not establish a basis for reasonable reliance. Plaintiff has not directed the Court to any evidence indicating that Mr.

Cates v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.

253 F.R.D. 422 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 2008

Adequacy: Rule (23)(a)(4) To satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement, named plaintiffs must establish that they share common interests with class members and will vigorously prosecute such interests with qualified counsel … Courts certify under this subsection when class actions are not as clearly called for as they are under Rules 23(b)(1) and (b)(2), but where such treatment is still desirable and convenient. Amchem Prods., Inc. v.

Barnette v. Bunting

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 2021

For the other three grounds, Petitioner failed to establish that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.12   … A petition “qualifies as second or successive only if it challenges a previously challenged judgment” authorizing the petitioner’s confinement.14 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), a petitioner

Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Co. v. Patrol Valve Co.

106 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 27, 1952

This is not required since the Master’s findings and conclusions are to be deemed correct unless they are-shown to be clearly erroneous. … They and their offices were well equipped to handle such matters and, in addition, the judges felt more at liberty to use their services, although fully qualified, upon a reduced scale of charges and this because they were

EW Bliss Company v. Cold Metal Process Company

174 F. Supp. 99 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 1959

Cold Metal contends that neither of these values is sufficiently low to qualify the Bridgeport bearings as antifriction in fact. … They show that Sendzimir had the same basic concept as Lockwood, but that it was not clearly stated in the patent.

Robinson v. KeyBank National Association

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 9, 2025

federal court, and to dismiss before service any such complaint that the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune … The dismissal standard established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) for determining a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.

Girgis v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

733 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2010

Additionally, “in order to establish equitable tolling by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, [plaintiffs] must allege and establish that 1) defendants concealed the conduct that constitutes the cause of action; 2) defendants … Further, the loan documents attached to Plaintiffs’ complaint clearly identify Countrywide as the lender. [Doc. 1-1 at 38, 51, 61, 74.]

Artuso v. Felt

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2022

Based on the foundation in his expert report, Matthews is qualified to serve as an expert concerning investigative techniques. … At common law, complaining witnesses did not enjoy absolute immunity for their testimony. Rehberg, 566 U.S. at 370–73.

Sack v. Barbish

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 2021

Consequently, examination of a complaint for a plausible claim for relief is undertaken in conjunction with the “well-established principle that ‘Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain … immunity, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims against Barbish should remain in their entirety.” (Doc. No. 9 at PageID# 119.)

Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority v. Axa Marine & Aviation Insurance (UK) Ltd.

220 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2002

In the text of its argument, however, the Port Authority explicitly recognizes that, if the Airport Claims had alleged only that the Port Authority employees were acting "recklessly,” the employees would have lacked immunity … Zoppo, 71 Ohio St.3d at 554-55 , 644 N.E.2d 397 ("The Said decision was an aberration that failed to follow clearly established precedent."). 7 .