Case law

Kilroy v. National Labor Relations Board

633 F. Supp. 136 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1985

As such, the contested documents cannot qualify as inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters. Exemption 5 protection is likewise unavailable since the documents do not qualify for any discovery privileges. … The only difference between the two exemptions is that the unwarranted invasion under Exemption 6 must be clearly established.

Cochran

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2025

To survive to the discovery phase, a plaintiff need only establish that the pleadings be plausible, not probable. Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. … Likewise, he also has not met the requirements to qualify under §2733.06 as he is not claiming that he is entitled to any public office, nor has he given security before bringing his claims.

Harrison v. Proctor & Gamble Distrib., LLC

290 F. Supp. 3d 723 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 2017

In establishing a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing she is disabled and the initial burden of requesting an accommodation and showing that the request is objectively reasonable. … Plaintiff's own deposition testimony establishes that, while employed in the U.S.

Passarge v. Sharefax Credit Union

277 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2003

, 2) he was terminated, 3) he was qualified for the position, and 4) a substantially younger employee of similar qualifications was retained. … In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established he was 57 years old at the time of his termination, he was qualified for the position, and he was replaced by someone ten years younger.

Hopson v. Lioi

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 2021

Still, a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. … immunity.

Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Thriftway, Inc.

809 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 1992

Thus, we conclude that under certain circumstances, such as this, though the Court clearly has jurisdiction over the *41 matter, it does not have limitless discretion in reviewing the TTAB’s decision, § 1119 notwithstanding … The Plaintiff is thus, not a “lawful user” within the meaning of the Lanham Act, and does not qualify for concurrent registration in the expanded territory.

Edington on First, LLC v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 4, 2026

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not err when she found that Plaintiff failed to establish its diligence in complying with the specific deadline it sought to modify. See Carrizo (Utica) LLC v. … Plaintiff next argues that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is contrary to law because it prevents a determination of relevant claims on the merits and essentially immunizes Defendant’s conduct that took place after the filing

In Re Huntington Bancshares Inc. ERISA Litigation

620 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2009

An ESOP is an ERISA plan that is designed to invest primarily in “qualifying employer securities.” C. … Defendants disclosures show clearly that Huntington regularly warned investors that it was not immune to the effects of market turmoil.

United Wisconsin Life Insurance v. Kreiner & Peters Co., L.P.A.

306 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2004

American Medical then, as the plan supervisor, likely would qualify as a fiduciary, making it eligible to bring suit under ERISA. … "Under the American Rule, absent statutory authorization or an established contrary exception, each party bears its own attorney's fees.

Wood v. Wallace

825 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 1993

Under section 1396n(c)(1) of the Medicaid Act, the Secre *181 tary may, by waiver, approve a State plan to provide home and community based services to individuals who would otherwise qualify for hospitalization or institutionalization … A thorough analysis of this statute and its related regulations leads us to conclude that the provisions of the Medicare Act’s Waiver Program establish rights actionable under section 1983.

Robertson v. McKesson Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 2023

claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation by the established deadline of October 11, 2021.

Jordan v. Carter

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2024

So this notation order clearly asked for all parties’ input on whether the entire case should be remanded. … To expand on that a bit, the Osborn Court applied the well-established rule that a party’s ultimate failure to state a federal cause of action (i.e., the officer fails to prove his entitlement to Westfall Act immunity)

Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency

463 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2006

Because Dickerson has not proved each of the elements of the bona fide defense, the Court cannot apply it to immunize her from FDCPA liability. … Elizabeth does not apply here to immunize Dickerson from liability because she acquired all of the business related assets of "D.B.S.

Mitchell v. Fujitec America, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2021

Importantly, though, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. An absolute privilege would completely immunize a speaker who allegedly committed defamation. … Mitchell Has Pled Sufficient Facts To Overcome The Qualified Immunity Defense At The Pleading Stage.

Szeinbach v. Ohio State University

758 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2010

It is clearly an issue between two tenured faculty who refuse to resolve their conflicts and would rather “throw bombs” at each other. (Id. at 21.) … However, persons who have engaged in protected conduct do not thereby become sacrosanct and immune from review or evaluation. In Nichols v.

McGee v. East Ohio Gas Co.

200 F.R.D. 382 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 23, 2001

Given such a large number of customers, numerosity is clearly satisfied. 2. Commonality The commonality prerequisite requires there to be questions of law or fact common to the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). … Whether Defendant’s policies and/or practices violate the ECOA and/or state law is clearly a question common to Plaintiffs (b)(2) class.

Aniyunwiya v. Lutz

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2022

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … “It is well established that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence

Nouri v. State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2023

) when Congress has clearly and expressly abrogated the state’s immunity. … Here, the State of Ohio has not waived its sovereign immunity and has not consented to this suit. Congress has not abrogated the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 or in the Declaratory Judgement Act.

Welsh v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

954 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2013

Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which plaintiffs failed to satisfy the fifth prima facie element because they engaged in conduct that was clearly different from proposed comparators. … “The defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause

Simmons v. Ohio Civil Service Emp. Assoc.

259 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 2003

Further, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ignored this Court’s order that she establish the basis for its jurisdiction over her claims. … The Court does not linger over this issue because three of the defenses that Defendant raises are meritorious, as set forth in the analysis above, and each is clearly sufficient to satisfy the second prong of the United Coin