Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Albert Pickett, Jr., Keyonna Johnson, Jarome Montgomery, Odessa Parks, and Tiniya Shepherd against the City of Cleveland. The plaintiffs, all African American residents of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, allege that Cleveland Water's policy of placing water liens on properties for unpaid water bills disproportionately affects Black homeowners. The water liens, which accumulate penalties and interest, can lead to foreclosure and eviction. The plaintiffs claim that this policy violates the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Ohio Civil Rights Act (OCRA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, creating the "Water Lien Class" under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class includes all Black homeowners or residents in Cuyahoga County who have had a water lien placed on their property by Cleveland Water within the last two years. The district court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's certification order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their FHA claim on a disparate-impact theory. The court found that the common question of whether Cleveland's water lien policy disproportionately affects Black homeowners predominated over individual issues, satisfying Rule 23(b)(3). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief. The appellate court declined to address the merits of the plaintiffs' FHA claim, focusing solely on the class certification issues. View "Pickett v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Jessica Hines, a dancer, sued National Entertainment Group, LLC (NEG), an adult entertainment club, for failing to properly compensate its employees under various federal and state laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio wage laws. Hines had signed three separate Lease Agreement Waivers with NEG, each containing an arbitration provision. NEG moved to dismiss the suit or stay the proceedings pending arbitration, arguing that Hines had agreed to arbitrate any disputes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied NEG’s motion to dismiss, finding that Hines had plausibly alleged sufficient facts to support standing. The court also denied NEG’s motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the arbitration provision was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and thus unenforceable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s denial of NEG’s motion to stay. The appellate court held that the arbitration provision was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. The court found that Hines had reasonable opportunity to understand the plain terms of the arbitration clause, which were not hidden in fine print. The court also determined that the arbitration agreement was supported by adequate consideration and that any inconvenience or potential inconsistency caused by separate actions was not a legitimate basis for overriding the arbitration agreement.The Sixth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to consider the remaining factors under Stout v. J.D. Byrider, which include whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, whether Congress intended the federal claims to be arbitrable, and whether to stay the case pending arbitration if some but not all claims are subject to arbitration. View "Hines v. National Entertainment Group" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Carvin Thomas and Terrell Lawrence, filed a class-action lawsuit against members of the Tennessee Board of Parole, alleging that the use of a computer test, STRONG-R, to determine parole eligibility violated their constitutional right to due process. They claimed that the test produced inaccurate results due to inadequate training of correctional employees and that the results were kept secret, preventing inmates from challenging them effectively. Both plaintiffs experienced changes in their STRONG-R scores without any new negative behavior, leading to parole denials based on these scores.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The court found that Tennessee’s parole statutes do not confer a protected liberty interest in parole, as they do not create a legitimate expectation of parole.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Tennessee’s parole statutes do not sufficiently constrain the Board’s discretion to deny parole, thus not creating a constitutionally recognized entitlement to parole. The court noted that while the plaintiffs identified serious issues with the STRONG-R test, the lack of a protected liberty interest in parole precluded their due process claims. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Thomas v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Lavonce Makiri Smith was stopped by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and a gun was found in his pocket. Smith moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. The incident began when Detective Garza was involved in a car accident, and Lt. Jonathan Wu, who was also at the scene, noticed a silver Chrysler that matched a stolen vehicle report. The Chrysler circled the area multiple times, and Wu observed three young Black men, including Smith, walking towards his car from the direction of the Chrysler. Wu suspected they were associated with the stolen car and might be planning a carjacking or robbery.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan held an evidentiary hearing where Wu testified. The court found Wu's testimony credible and concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Smith. The court ruled that the stop was lawful due to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the frisk was justified based on the totality of the circumstances suggesting Smith was armed and dangerous. Smith entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court found that Wu's observations and the behavior of Smith and his companions, combined with the context of the stolen vehicle and the high-crime area, provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court also rejected Smith's arguments challenging the district court's factual findings and application of the law, concluding that the totality of the circumstances justified the stop and frisk. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Brian Lyngaas, a dentist, sued United Concordia Companies, Inc. (UCCI) for sending unsolicited faxed advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Lyngaas, through his dental practice, was part of UCCI’s Fee for Service Dental Network, which included a “Value Add Program” (VAP) offering discounts from third-party vendors. UCCI sent three faxes promoting these discounts, which Lyngaas claimed were unsolicited advertisements.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of UCCI, ruling that the faxes were not advertisements under the TCPA because UCCI’s profit motive was too remote. Lyngaas appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that UCCI’s faxes were advertisements under the TCPA because they facially promoted third-party products as part of exclusive marketing agreements, and UCCI had a sufficiently direct profit motive. The court emphasized that TCPA liability falls on the sender of the fax, not necessarily the seller of the advertised product. The court also noted that Lyngaas could not proceed with claims regarding a fax he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. United Concordia Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a lawsuit against General Motors (GM) and Robert Bosch LLC, alleging that the companies misled consumers about the emissions produced by certain Chevrolet Cruze vehicles. They claimed that the vehicles emitted higher levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) than advertised and that the emissions control systems were manipulated to pass regulatory tests. The plaintiffs sought damages under various state fraud laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims, ruling that those based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The court allowed other claims to proceed, particularly those alleging that GM's advertising misled consumers about the vehicles' emissions. However, after the Sixth Circuit's decision in a similar case (In re Ford Motor Company F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation), the district court revisited its decision and dismissed the remaining fraud claims, concluding they were preempted by federal law. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the RICO claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court should determine whether the plaintiffs' remaining claims could proceed without relying on a disagreement with the EPA's determinations. The court remanded the case for the district court to decide if the claims were preempted under the analysis described. The court affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claims and the denial of the plaintiffs' post-judgment motion to vacate the judgment in part and approve a preliminary settlement agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Counts v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Detectives from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department observed Edwin Santiago arriving at a car dealership in a vehicle emitting a strong odor of marijuana. Santiago exited the car, and the detectives noticed a pistol on his waistband. Suspecting Santiago of possessing a firearm while under the influence of marijuana, the detectives detained him. During the detention, they discovered Santiago was a felon, leading to his arrest and subsequent indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee held a suppression hearing where the detectives and a witness testified about the marijuana odor. The court found the detectives' testimony credible and ruled that the odor provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. Consequently, the court denied Santiago's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the arrest. Santiago, representing himself at trial, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 56 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Santiago's appeal, which challenged the denial of his motion to suppress and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the smell of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest. The court also found Santiago's within-Guidelines sentence to be substantively reasonable, considering his criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. Santiago's additional pro se claims were not considered, as he was represented by counsel on appeal. View "United States v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Tracey Shaw was indicted in January 2023 for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shaw pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea agreement, waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable guideline range. At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined Shaw’s guideline range to be 87 to 108 months and sentenced him to 92 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court did not make a recommendation about substance-abuse treatment during incarceration but left it to the Bureau of Prisons. For supervised release, the court stated that Shaw might be required to participate in substance-abuse treatment if directed by the probation office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee issued a written judgment stating that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer. Shaw appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement, which he interpreted as delegating the decision to the probation office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Shaw’s appeal was not barred by his plea agreement’s appeal waiver because he was challenging the written judgment, not the sentence itself. The court found that the oral sentence was ambiguous regarding the substance-abuse treatment condition. The written judgment clarified this ambiguity by specifying that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court concluded that this language met constitutional requirements by mandating treatment while allowing the probation officer to handle the details. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s written judgment. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Jaime Norris applied for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income in October 2020, claiming disability due to various mental and physical disorders. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, leading Norris to request a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). During the hearing, both Norris and a vocational expert testified. The ALJ concluded that Norris was not disabled under the Social Security Act, determining that he could adjust to other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Norris appealed to the Appeals Council, which denied his request for review, finalizing the ALJ's decision.Norris then sought judicial review in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion. Norris subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that the vocational expert's testimony about the number of jobs available in the national economy constituted substantial evidence. The court rejected Norris's arguments that the ALJ erred in determining the number of significant jobs and that the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court concluded that the ALJ's findings were reasonably drawn from the record and supported by substantial evidence, even if the evidence could support a contrary decision. View "Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

A high school student, Eszter Pryor, trained and competed with the Ohio State Diving Club at The Ohio State University (OSU). In the summer of 2014, when she was sixteen, her diving coach, William Bohonyi, sexually abused her. Pryor alleged that OSU was aware of the abuse by August 2014, as they fired Bohonyi following an internal investigation. Pryor filed a Title IX lawsuit against OSU in January 2022, claiming the university was deliberately indifferent to a sexually hostile culture and her abuse.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Pryor's claim, ruling it was time-barred by the statute of limitations. OSU had argued that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, as per Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A), and the district court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of OSU based on the expiration of the limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the correct statute of limitations for Title IX claims in Ohio is the two-year period for personal injury actions under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A). The court rejected Pryor's argument that a twelve-year limitations period for child sex-abuse claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.111(C) should apply. The court emphasized the importance of uniformity and predictability in applying the statute of limitations and noted that Pryor's claim accrued when she turned eighteen in July 2015, giving her until July 2017 to file her lawsuit. Since she filed in January 2022, her claim was indeed time-barred. View "Pryor v. The Ohio State University" on Justia Law