Case law

Chao v. First National Lending Corp.

516 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2006

The parties agree that the work performed by the loan officers is clearly an integral part of the Defendants’ business, and that Defendants oversaw the loan officers compliance with RE SPA and other industry regulations. … In this case, the Defendants have failed to establish that they acted in good faith.

Luster v. United States

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 2023

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that his remedy under Section 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective.” Id. … Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction and sentence in this petition. And it appears that he is attempting to argue that an intervening change in the law, in United States v. Taylor, 142 S.

Ingram v. Regano

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 2024

Defendants further contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims because in 2018, when the investigation occurred, there was no clear and established caselaw in the Sixth Circuit permitting liability … Defendants from liability as there was no clearly established law holding that a purportedly biased investigation violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights.

Brown

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2026

Moreover, and more importantly, Defendant did not provide any information or declaration from anyone from Stanley Steemer to attempt to qualify Stanley Steemer as a “qualified, independent expert” or to establish any “expert … Under Ohio law, an insurer lacks reasonable justification for its denial when its refusal to pay 13 The Court has already explained that Defendant has not qualified or even attempted to qualify Paul Davis or someone from

Bryant

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

Henderson, 354 F.3d 432, 434-35 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Congress conditioned the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity upon a plaintiff’s satisfaction of rigorous administrative exhaustion requirements and time … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must “show that 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily; 3) despite his qualifications and performance

McMurdie v. Doutt

468 F. Supp. 766 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 1979

Suspension of the license of an individual solicitor of a religious organization, however, does not warrant denial of the right of a religious organization to qualify other solicitors. … In this way, the whole of mankind will become one people speaking one language, thus establishing one world of one culture. 7 .

Hailes

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2026

And Hailes’s “supervisors intentionally cancelled a position for which [Hailes was] qualified and applied for.” Id. … personnel to deviate from established procedures.

Lopardo v. Lehman Bros., Inc.

548 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 2008

The Defendants argue that Ohio law should mirror the federal, and that the four year period of repose is enforceable, absolute, and immune from principles of equitable tolling. … connected to the establishment of the securities accounts and violations of the contracts that governed them.

Riley

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2026

Thus, DeVries’s email outlining performance concerns is not a proper basis for this Court to find Plaintiff not qualified. … The Court ultimately need not resolve whether this is sufficient to establish a question of fact regarding Plaintiff’s qualification for the process engineer position because, as set forth below, he cannot establish the

Hill v. Babcock & Wilcox

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 15, 2021

Mich. 2014) (“court may disregard allegations in the complaint if contradicted by facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint[]”); see also Williams v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 498 F. … Rather, the complaint allegations clearly provide that she returned from paid leave and resumed her duties. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Highway Auto Sales, Inc. v. Auto-Konig of Scottsdale, Inc.

943 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 1996

Id., 471 U.S. at 479 , 105 S.Ct. at 2185 ; Stump, 793 F.Supp. at 159 . *831 In this case, defendant’s contacts with Ohio before and after the intermediate step of contracting — separately or taken together— fail to qualify … In accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s warning against considering defendant's affidavits, see CompuServe, 89 F.3d at 1263 n. 7 (”[t]he district court clearly erred in considering Patterson’s [defendant] affidavit"), I will

Green v. City of Willoughby Hills

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 25, 2025

Plaintiff has not established extraordinary circumstances that justify revisiting the Court’s final judgment. IV. … In other words, “a judgment must be ‘dead wrong’ to qualify as being clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting H & A Land Corp. v. City of Kennedale, No. 4:02-cv-458, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25797, at *5–6 (N.D. Tex.

Wilson v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 8, 2019

(1:19-CV-2238) clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” … Again, she does not explain what condition she has that qualifies as a disability, or why she believes her employer’s actions were motivated by her race or sex.

Wimberly v. Montefiore

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2022

The only exception to the PREP Act’s immunity is willful misconduct claims. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1) (“[T]he sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons set forth in subsection (a) shall … “Covered countermeasures” are defined as qualified pandemic or epidemic products, drugs and biological products authorized for emergency use, security countermeasures, and respiratory protective devices.

Ruff v. Runyon

60 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 1999

On one hand, the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity to allow suits against the United States for damages arising from tortious acts of government employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b). … The Court’s inquiry is straightforward: are plaintiffs’ injuries clearly not covered by FECA? If FECA does not apply, the Court has jurisdiction to hear this action.

McGory v. United States

651 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1987

The surface weather observations made at Franklin by a qualified weather observer revealed that the weather front had passed through the area by 6:10 P.M., EST. … The same record shows clearly that at the same time, the plane was still more than six miles from the Franklin Airport and was losing altitude at a frightening rate.

Grayer v. Copperweld Steel Co.

687 F. Supp. 1157 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 29, 1988

Grayer does not dispute that within those 60 days he did not have a perfect attendance, and his employment records clearly show that he did not. … Grayer has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Although he was fired by Copperweld, and is a member of a protected group, he cannot establish disparate treatment.

Gawry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

640 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2009

However, class certification is not warranted where the proposal “to calculate individual damages is clearly inadequate” or requires significant inquiry to determine necessary variables. Id. … Moreover, Carr cannot establish standing through the argument that Countrywide could repeat the alleged misconduct yet evade review. ECF No. 80 at 9.

United States v. Cochran

640 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2009

. § 3145 (c) are met in this case, including establishing “exceptional reasons” for permitting his release. … Conclusion It is undisputed that Defendant does not qualify for pre-sentencing release under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (a)(2).

Zilba v. City of Port Clinton

924 F. Supp. 2d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 15, 2013

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Defendant is immune from liability for Plaintiffs claims made under the Ohio constitution, but this immunity does not extend to § 1983 claims or claims arising from alleged violations … But if municipalities do this, they must follow the rules established in § 4521.03(B).