Successfully defended CBC Innovis in an action by a consumer for alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  The district court granted CBC Innovis' motion to dismiss, holding it was not liable as a matter of law for the alleged inaccurate credit reports.  The district court concluded that under the FCRA, CBC Innovis was a "reseller" of information, and not a "consumer reporting agency," and hence was not liable for the inaccuracies allegedly contained in Plaintiff's credit reports.  The district court also concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim against CBC Innovis because it did not allege that it failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information it reports.  The district court's decision is available at 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24936.

Represented death row inmate in case before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiff was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1983. The Southern District of Ohio Court found plaintiff received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial by not performing adequate sentence-phase investigation. The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the judgment of the district court to grant habeas relief. This followed two other previously successful appeals before the Sixth Circuit involving inmates who had been sentenced to death.

Plaintiff Wanda Johnson sued the Health Institute of Louisville alleging that she had been subjected to unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation under Title IX after she alleged that she was sexually harassed by a male instructor and falsely claimed to have filed a sexual harassment charge against the school with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights. After a week-long jury trial in 2003 in the Western District of Kentucky, presided over by Judge John G. Heyburn, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Health Institute.

Our firm represented the Plaintiff in a suit involving a complex claim against a surety bond and general contractor arising out of a construction project.  Our client supplied large quantities of material to the general contractor on a public construction project in Highland County, Ohio. When the general contractor failed to pay our client for these materials, we filed a Complaint on behalf of our client against the material supplier and the surety company. The surety company asserted a variety of defenses to our client's claim for payment, including an argument that our client's claim was barred by the "joint check rule."  After extensive litigation through the trial court and the court of appeals, we ultimately obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client against the surety company, and were able to recoup the entire amount due to our client, plus interest. This case involved novel legal issues of first impression in Ohio. Through the effective use of motion practice and thorough research, we were able to obtain a substantial recovery on behalf of our client in a vigorously contested case.

The Plaintiffs asserted claims against Kia Motors of America, Inc. alleging violations of the Ohio Lemon Law and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The case was tried to a jury in the Court of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio. By utilizing effective cross-examination of the Plaintiffs and their expert as well as persuasive testimony from Kia's expert witness, we were able to obtain a complete defense verdict from the jury on behalf of our client.