CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, INC., D/B/A BESSE MEDICAL AMERISOURCEBERGEN SPECIALTY GROUP, INC.; JOHN DOES 1–10,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3741
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:13-cv-02085—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: February 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 11, 2017
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. In 2010, Defendant ASD Specialty Healthcare, d/b/a/ Besse Medical AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group (“Besse”), a pharmaceutical distributor, sent a one-page fax advertising the drug Prolia to 53,502 physicians. Only 40,343, or 75%, of these faxes were successfully transmitted. Plaintiff Sandusky Wellness Center, a chiropractic clinic that employed one of these physicians, claims to have received this so-called “junk fax,” and— three years later—filed a lawsuit against Besse for the annoyance. Sandusky alleged that Besse violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending an unsolicited fax advertisement lacking a proper opt-out notice, and it sought to certify a putative class of all 40,343 Prolia fax recipients. The district court denied Sandusky’s motion for class certification, and because that decision was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CITY OF CINCINNATI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants,

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3752
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:12-cv-00104—Sandra S. Beckwith, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 11, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A bank customarily has the right to take title to a property if the borrower fails to repay the loan used to purchase it. After the 2008 financial crisis, many banks foreclosed on many properties used to secure the underlying loans. According to the City of Cincinnati, one financial institution based out of State (Wells Fargo) and one based out of the country (Deutsche Bank) adopted a policy of violating local and state property regulations when the cost of compliance outweighed the value that could be recouped through the resale of a foreclosed property. The policy, says the City, had two consequences. One was to violate local and state public-safety laws that require owners to maintain their properties. The other was to create a common law public nuisance that lowered property tax revenues, increased police and fire expenses, and added other administrative costs.

As this case comes to us, the parties have resolved all claims arising from any individual code violations and associated fines attached to properties named in the City’s complaint. The City also has resolved the common law nuisance claims against Deutsche Bank. That leaves the common law nuisance claims against Wells Fargo, which the district court eventually rejected as a matter of law. The City appeals that ruling, and we affirm.