Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

May 23, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Breach of Contract
- Civil RICO statute
- Employment Law - Termination
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act - prisoners change of address
- Kentucky Whistleblower Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

Aerel S.R.L. v. PCC Airfoils, LLC (May 23, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0177p-06.pdf
-  Aerel, S.R.L., an Italian company that served as the exclusive sales agent for PCC Airfoils, L.L.C. in Italy, sued PCC for the breach of a contract that the parties executed in 2000. PCC is an Ohio-based company that provides castings for parts used in jet engines and power generating equipment. Aerel maintains that the contract required PCC to pay Aerel commissions for all orders that Aerel obtained for PCC in Italy during the term of the contract, even if those orders were not finalized until after the contract had expired. The district court concluded that the contract unambiguously permitted PCC to cease paying commissions upon the termination of the contract on December 31, 2002, and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of PCC. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Pavlovich v. National City Bank  (May 23, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0178p-06.pdf
-   The sole issue before us is whether the District Court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Ohio's applicable civil RICO statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.34(H). We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the award.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Duha v. Agrium, et al (May 23, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0174p-06.pdf
-  In this diversity action the district court dismissed the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens, concluding that a more convenient forum was in Argentina, where the plaintiff worked at the time of his dismissal. The plaintiff, Wayne Duha, sued his former employer, Agrium, Inc., asserting a number of causes of action related to his employment and termination. Duha appeals, and Agrium cross-appeals the district court's order denying Agrium's motion to file an updated declaration stating that some of its potential witnesses are no longer employed by Agrium. Duha's complaint contains 45 counts, asserting various contract and tort theories. The district court dismissed many of Duha's claims without including them in its forum non conveniens analysis, and gave U.S. citizen Duha's choice of forum too little deference, particularly in light of a proper consideration of the private interest factors governing the law of forum non conveniens. We therefore vacate the district court's order dismissing the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds and remand for further proceedings. We decline to supplement the record on appeal because the district court's order denying its motion to file the updated declaration was not an abuse of discretion.
 
DaimlerChrysler Corp v. Cox (May 23, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0175p-06.pdf
-  This is a case of first impression in this circuit, involving the question of whether Michigan's State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act (SCFRA), in conjunction with other Michigan laws and with directives from the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), runs afoul of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in cases where prisoners refuse to inform their pension plans of a change of address. The combined effect of the Michigan laws requires wardens to notify pension plans that they should send the prisoner's benefit payments to the institutional address of that prisoner. When a pension payment is received at the prison, it is deposited into the prisoner's institutional account. SCFRA then allows the warden to garnish up to 90% of each deposit to reimburse the state of Michigan for the costs of caring for the prisoner. In this case, the DaimlerChrysler Corporation, as the fiduciary of its pension plan, brought a declaratory action to void state-court orders and notices, issued pursuant to SCFRA, that informed DaimlerChrysler that it should send benefit payments to the prisoners' institutional addresses. The district court invalidated the orders and notices as violations of ERISA's anti-alienation provision, but only to the extent that DaimlerChrysler is required to "send or make payments of Pension Plan benefits to any address or account other than as designated by the Participants of the Pension Plan, under Pension Plan terms." For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Miller v. Admin Office Ct (May 23, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0176p-06.pdf
-  After Beverly Miller was fired from her job of over 24 years as the jury-pool manager for Jefferson County, Kentucky, she sued the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) as well as various county officials. She alleged a First Amendment violation on the basis that her termination was in retaliation for bringing to light various administrative problems, and further claimed that she was deprived of her right to due process because she was not afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to her termination. Miller also brought a claim under the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. The district court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities and against the AOC on the basis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Miller's claims against the officials in their individual capacities were dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. She now appeals the dismissal of her individual-capacity claims and the dismissal of her Kentucky Whistleblower Act claim. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates