Case law

Dean v. Rhea

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2022

An action has no arguable basis in law when a Defendant is immune from suit or when a Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … To state a prima facie case for retaliation prohibited by the First Amendment, Plaintiff must establish: 1) he engaged in -5- protected conduct; 2) an adverse

Lichoff v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

218 F.R.D. 564 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 2003

Before satisfying Rule 23 specifications, plaintiffs must clearly define the class, so that its prospective members can be reasonably identified. A court faced with an unsuitable class definition may reject the class. … However, “[t]he fact that some plaintiffs may be successful in their suits against a defendant while others may not is clearly not a ground for invoking Rule 23(b)(1)(A).” Bendectin Prod. Liab.

Greater Fremont, Inc. v. City of Fremont

302 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 1968

There is no question that the city could establish and maintain a competing CATV system for the benefit of its residents. … Thus, this Court clearly does not differ from the holding in DiBella v.

Lugo v. Simon

453 F. Supp. 677 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1978

The original senate bill even went so far as to require that HEW establish a permanent office to review compliance. … Further delay clearly constitutes irreparable injury justifying an exception to the exhaustion requirement. Section 300p-2(c) is clearly inapplicable to these issues. *686 2.

Harris v. Hunt

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2022

A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Clunk, 389 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.”).

Griesmar v. City of Stow, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 24, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Officer Bailey and Lieutenant Prusha are entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. … Because the Court determines that neither Officer Bailey nor Lieutenant Prusha committed a constitutional violation, the Court need not address qualified immunity. II.

Depew v. Stolarsky

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2023

Plaintiff does not specifically identify which of Defendants’ alleged acts constitute violations of his civil rights, nor does Plaintiff specifically identify the clearly established right that arises from federal law … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that he “(1) is disabled under the statutes, (2) is ‘otherwise qualified’ for participation in [a government] program

Taverns for Tots, Inc. v. City of Toledo

341 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 2004

If the plaintiff wishes to sponsor such “events,” it may do so if an event qualifies for the exemption. … Plaintiff has not clearly articulated the manner in which the application required under the Clean Indoor Air Act conflicts with free speech.

Mance v. Great Works Employment

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2023

See, e.g., Hammon, 165 F.3d at 450 (holding that a plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie ADA claim where he failed to show that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; failed to establish that his employer … knew or should have known about his disability; and failed to establish that he was qualified for his position with or without accommodation).4 The FAC also fails to state a

Williams v. Allied Automotive, Autolite Division

704 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 1988

This fact alone does not preclude these plaintiffs from recovering incurred response costs under CERCLA if they can be established at trial. … Allied’s motion is too general in most respects to establish grounds upon which summary judgment can be granted.

Mance v. May

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2023

See, e.g., Hammon, 165 F.3d at 450 (holding that a plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie ADA claim where he failed to show that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; failed to establish that his employer … knew or should have known about his disability; and failed to establish that he was qualified for his position with or without accommodation).4 The FAC also fails to state a

Johnson v. Cuyahoga County CSEA

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2021

Courts are not required, however, to accept as true factual allegations that are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). … Leonetti are entitled to absolute immunity. Judicial officers generally are absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991); Barnes v.

Group v. Robinson

158 F. Supp. 3d 632 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 2016

“Clearly established Federal law” for purposes of the provision “is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. … L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) (explaining that “only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [Supreme] Court[] decisions” qualify as “clearly established Federal law” for purposes of Section 2254(d) (citations and internal quotation

Lloyd v. Cannon

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 5, 2022

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has not established that a “false statement of fact was made.” Susan B. Anthony List, 779 F.3d at 632-33. … First, Congress must state clearly that it intends a statute to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996).

Alabsi v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2021

The motion may only be granted if the moving party is “clearly entitled to judgment.” Id. (internal citations omitted). V. … However, well- established caselaw in Ohio makes it clear that this exception does not apply to intentional torts.

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

184 F.R.D. 583 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1998

This class is clearly defined and there should be no difficulty in ascertaining whether certain individuals are members of the class. … As has already been established, the named plaintiffs have common interests with the unnamed plaintiffs.

Goodsite v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

957 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2013

With respect to the third element, though, the parties disagree about what actions qualify as adverse employment actions for purposes of retaliation. … However, “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work.” Id.

Stansell v. Grafton Correctional Institution

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2020

The mere adherence to an original decision, however, is not enough to establish continuing violation.55 A continuing violation exists only when there are “continued unlawful acts” rather than “continued ill effects from … To bring a discrimination claim under the ADA, “a plaintiff must prove that: ‘(1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified; and (3) he is being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or

Wilson-Simmons v. Lake County Sheriff's Department

982 F. Supp. 496 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 22, 1997

Wilson-Simmons is a member of a protected class and qualified for her position as a Correction Officer. The parties dispute, however, whether or not Ms. … Wilson-Simmons perceived the assignment to fourth floor duty as less favorable, the fourth floor is clearly part of her duties as a correction officer.

Legkodymov

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

Aug. 31, 2017) (“It is well established that an immunity defense—which is undeniably an affirmative defense—is not a proper consideration in an extradition proceeding.”); Matter of Extradition of Bravo, No. 19 … Bogue’s immunity claims, Mr. Bogue is free to attempt to raise the immunity defense in the requesting country of France.”).