CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

PATRICIA DOWLING and CURTIS DOWLING,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, THE CLEVELAND CLINIC, and CLEVELAND CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 09-3159

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 07-02320—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: November 20, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 3, 2010
Before: MARTIN, BOGGS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Patricia Dowling slipped and fell in a puddle of water while walking down a hallway adjacent to the cafeteria at the Cleveland Clinic. Appellants Patricia and Curtis Dowling filed an action against appellees the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Cleveland Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic Health System (collectively, “the Clinic”) in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Dowlings appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Clinic. However, because the Dowlings did not proffer any evidence of how long the water hazard had existed before her fall such that an employee would have constructive notice, as required by Ohio slip-and-fall law, the district court did not err in granting the Clinic’s motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Dowlings’ motion for additional discovery because the Dowlings made no discovery requests until after the Clinic had completed its discovery and filed its motion for summary judgment, fifteen months after the Dowlings filed their suit in federal court, and did not complete their discovery during the sixty days offered by the court. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

KARIM KOUBRITI,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD CONVERTINO,
Defendant-Appellant,
MICHAEL THOMAS,
Defendant.


No. 09-1016

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 07-13678—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.
Argued: October 14, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 3, 2010
Before: KENNEDY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Richard Convertino appeals the district court’s partial denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in this civil action filed against him by Plaintiff-Appellee Karim Koubriti. Koubriti seeks monetary damages from Convertino, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for constitutional violations that Convertino allegedly committed while serving as the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted Koubriti for conspiracy to provide material support or resources to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2339A, and conspiracy to engage in fraud or misuse of visas, permits, or other immigration documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1546(a). Because 1) Plaintiff has pointed to no harm to himself from the investigation Convertino conducted except the non-disclosure of certain exculpatory evidence at trial, and 2) Convertino is shielded by prosecutorial immunity for such nondisclosures of exculpatory evidence, we REVERSE the decision of the district court denying in part Convertino’s motion to dismiss and AFFIRM its decision to the extent that it granted Convertino’s motion in part.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

HARRIET D. SCHOONMAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SPARTAN GRAPHICS LEASING, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 09-1732

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 07-01245—Paul Lewis Maloney, Chief District Judge.
Argued: January 11, 2010
Decided and Filed: February 3, 2010
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Harriet Schoonmaker appeals from the order and judgment of the district court granting Defendant Spartan Graphics Leasing LLC’s motion for summary judgment in this action under the Age Discrimination Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. We AFFIRM.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

JERRY L. DEMINGS, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, in his official capacity, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO., NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., and NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 08-4476

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 06-00967—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 13, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 3, 2010
Before: O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.); GILMAN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired). The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), Pub. L. No. 105-353, 112 Stat. 3227, “provides that private state-law ‘covered’ class actions alleging untruth or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a ‘covered’ security may not ‘be maintained in any State or Federal court.’” Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 636–37 (2006) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)). In this case, the district court dismissed Jerry L. Demings’s proposed class-action lawsuit after determining that it was precluded under SLUSA. Demings does not now dispute that his proposed class-action suit was a covered state-law class action that would generally be precluded under SLUSA’s terms. Instead, he argues that his suit fits within the “state actions” exception to SLUSA preclusion. 15 U.S.C. § 77p(d)(2)(A). We agree with the district court and find that the proposed class action does not fit within the narrow state-actions exception to SLUSA preclusion. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing the suit.