Case law

Lohr v. Kiefer-Erb

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2022

Martin fails to qualify as an authorized decisionmaker. And the record before the Court does not contain sufficient evidence to make a ruling as a matter of law. … Thus, they have not attempted to meet their burden of establishing an exception to immunity, and they are deemed to have abandoned their state law claims. See Brown v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 545 Fed.

Exel, Inc. v. Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc.

276 F. Supp. 3d 750 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 2017

Exel argues that the Gargiule deposition “underscores [Exel’s] ability to establish at trial lost sales as a direct result of SRT’s failure in the transportation chain.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. … In theory, perhaps Sandoz could qualify as a lost-volume seller; but in fact; there is no evidence to support Sandoz’s qualification as a lost-volume seller.

Setty v. Village of Russellville

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

Moreover, merely facing the prospect of a subsequent, related lawsuit does not establish “plain legal prejudice.” See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. … Even if Defendants are correct that statutory immunity clearly dictates a result in their favor on Setty’s tort claims against the Village, nothing would prevent Defendants from asserting the same defense in a subsequently

Mauer v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP

752 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2010

The magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiffs request for documents related to the appeal of Mittenzwei’s evaluation is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law because Mittenzwei is not a party to this lawsuit, and he … employment action; 3) he was qualified for the position lost; and 4) he was replaced by a substantially younger individual, which may include an individual within the protected class.

Ohio State Consumer Education Ass'n v. Schweiker

541 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 1982

The exception was broadened by the elimination of this qualifying language.” (emphasis added). … It can be argued that the first sentence of the notice, while a correct statement of the law from a retrospective viewpoint, would inhibit requests for a hearing. 4 The second sentence, however, clearly explains to a recipient

Community Insurance v. Rowe

85 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 1999

Although the scope of the exception has not been definitively established, Georges v. … However, the Rowes’ claim does not clearly seek to enforce the terms of a welfare benefits plan.

Baker v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc.

838 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 1993

Baker’s unsworn letter did not technically qualify as a cognizable charge upon which the OCRC could take action, Siemens argues, the letter could not give the OCRC even “a limited opportunity to resolve” Mr. … Baker clearly intended to elect judicial remedies in his first filing with this Court. See Baker I, 820 F.Supp. at 1057.

Gibson v. Blythe

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 2025

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 firmly established that a municipality, or ... a county, cannot be held liable under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Gregory v.

Chappel v. Hunter

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

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. … “[I]t is well established that a final trial court judgment operates as res judicata while an appeal is pending.” Commodities Export Co. v. U.S.

Baker v. Chevron USA, Inc.

680 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2010

If the plaintiff establishes general causation, then she must establish specific causation. Specific causation establishes whether the substance or chemical in fact caused the plaintiffs medical condition. Id. at 77. … That clearly is not the case, as the Court’s summation of the studies demonstrates.

Gales v. Charles

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2021

App’x. 814, *1 (6th Cir. 2004)) (“If a statute of limitations defense clearly appears on the face of a pleading, the district court can raise the issue sua sponte”). … In order to establish a claim for First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) [he] was engaged in constitutionally protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against [him] that would deter

Karlsson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2026

To establish a prima facie case of associational disability discrimination under Ohio law, Karlsson must show that “(1) [she] was qualified for [her] position; (2) [she] suffered an adverse employment action; (3) [her] … It is well established in the Sixth Circuit that an individual must qualify as an “eligible” employee as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A) to pursue an interference or retaliation claim under the FMLA. Banerjee v.

El-Bey v. Walker

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 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. … App’x. 182, 184 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Such a random and isolated incident [of alleged interference with the plaintiff’s mail] is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”); Johnson v.

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sierra Brokerage Services Inc.

608 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2009

As the SEC has established all the elements of its Section 5 prima facie case, the Defendants must prove that they qualify for an exemption from the registration requirement to avoid liability. 2. … The fact that each individual transfer may not have involved a sale to the public does not render the transactions immune from registration where the participants clearly (and in Tsai’s case expressly) intended the transactions

Lockwood

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2026

Class Counsel, the law firm Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, are qualified and are known within this District for handling complex cases such as this. See, e.g., Shy v. … Additionally, Epiq established and continues to maintain the Settlement Website, a toll-free telephone number, and a P.O. Box for the purposes of communicating with Settlement Class Members.

Hice v. David J. Joseph Co.

182 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 2016

In either case, DJJ argues that he cannot establish a prima facie claim under the FMLA. … Rather, to invoke the protection of the FMLA, an employee-must provide notice and a qualifying reason for requesting the leave.”

Abdul-Azziz El Bey v. Kehr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 10, 2019

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. … Therefore, all the individual defendants in their official capacities are immune from suit to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Zenadocchio v. BAE Systems Unfunded Welfare Benefit Plan

936 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2013

See also Kalish, 419 F.3d at 513 (concluding that where claimant has clearly established that he or she is disabled, the appropriate remedy is an immediate award ,of benefits rather than a remand to allow the plan *894 administrator … However, the record does not show Zenadocchio is clearly entitled to benefits.

Warner v. McLean Trucking Co.

627 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 22, 1985

Therefore the union’s failure to do so was clearly not so egregious as to constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. … Their motion for summary judgment based on their arbi-tral immunity must therefore be denied. (2) Factual Basis for Breach of Duty of Fair Representation.

Coots v. Twilla

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2024

(See Doc. 70-3, Video at 7:12:11–7:12:23; Doc. 83 at 2 (claiming their dragging was “clearly use of force”)). … The Undersigned therefore does not need to address Defendants’ remaining qualified immunity arguments. (Doc. 70 at 8–9; Doc. 84 at 4). IV.