After a judgment had already been entered, the defendant hired Dinsmore to represent him in connection with the plaintiffs’ collection efforts. The plaintiffs claimed our client was a member of three limited liability companies, and they asked the trial court to charge his alleged membership interests.  We opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for charging order because our client was not an owner of any of the LLCs, as evidenced by their operating agreements.  Nevertheless, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ request.  The First District Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court “lacked competent evidence of [our client’s] membership” in the companies.  The First District held: “when determining if an individual is a member of a limited liability company for the purpose of R.C. 1705.19, the trial court must consider records maintained by the company for the purpose of its corporate governance that name those owners entitled to receive distributions and share in the profits and losses of the company.”  Because “the only records of the limited liability companies before the trial court established” that our client was not a member of the LLCs, the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for charging order. 

Stanfield v. On Target Consulting, 1st Dist. Ham. App. No. C-160890, 2017-Ohio-8830.

We represented The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) in a lawsuit filed by Definitive Solutions Company, Inc. (DSC) in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. DSC sued its former employees and their new employer, as well as P&G, when those employees left DSC. DSC asserted claims against P&G for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with business relationships, misappropriation of trade secrets, and civil aiding and abetting. After extensive discovery, P&G moved for, and was granted, summary judgment on each of DSC’s claims.

A bench trial on various claims DSC asserted against the other defendants was held in 2014. The trial court ruled against the former employees and awarded DSC damages. DSC ultimately settled with its former employees, and it appealed the trial court’s decision granting P&G summary judgment on the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.

On appeal, DSC claimed that P&G breached an agreement not to “directly solicit for employment” employees who had worked on its account and also that P&G had tortiously interfered with DSC’s relationship with the employees. The First District Court of Appeals rejected both of DSC’s arguments and affirmed summary judgment for P&G. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement between DSC and P&G prohibited solicitation for employment, not solicitation of another company to perform work. The Court also found nothing in P&G’s conduct that rose to the level of tortious interference.

See Definitive Solutions Co., Inc. v. Sliper, 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-150281, 2016-Ohio-533.

We successfully represented our client, an elementary school, in a lawsuit challenging the principal’s decision to suspend two students for intimidating behavior. After a bench trial, a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas judge found in favor of the school and dismissed the lawsuit. The Court ruled that the school had not abused its discretion in determining the manner in which the two students would be disciplined.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in favor of our client, holding the school handbook was not a contract, and, even if it was, the school did not abuse its discretion. It was an important decision in several respects. It reaffirmed the broad discretion given to private schools in disciplinary matters. It was the first appellate court in Hamilton County to address the issue of student discipline in the private elementary school context. And it was the first court in Ohio to squarely answer the question of whether a grade school handbook constitutes a binding contract on the school. In answering that question in the negative, Judge DeWine’s majority opinion represents a significant victory for private schools moving forward and only increases the burden student/parent plaintiffs face in challenging a disciplinary decision.

See D.T. v. St. Gabriel Consol. School, 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-150640, 2016-Ohio-784