CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SARAH HOHENBERG; JOSEPH HANSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE; DIVISION 14 OF THE
SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE GENERAL SESSIONS
COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 22-5783 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:20-cv-02432—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 19, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. Sarah Hohenberg and Joseph Hanson did not maintain their
homes or keep them up to code. Unhappy neighbors set the enforcement wheels in motion for
actions in the Shelby County Environmental Court, proceedings that eventually cost them their
homes and more. Hohenberg and Hanson sued Shelby County and the Environmental Court for
violating their due process rights. The district court dismissed their case for lack of jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and for failing to state a claim. We reverse
the jurisdictional ruling, affirm the failure-to-state-a-claim ruling in part, and remand. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
BROOKE CLARK,
Plaintiff,
LARRY HOLDER; CALVIN MARCUM, JESSICA
VANWINKLE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
A&L HOMECARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC; NILA
IRBY; DAWNETTA ABBETT, RUTHIE LUCAS,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. |
Nos. 22-3101/3102 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:20-cv-00757—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2022
Decided and Filed: May 19, 2023
Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),
plaintiffs may litigate federal minimum-wage and overtime claims on behalf of other “similarly
situated” employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). At issue here is the showing of similarity that is
necessary for a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to employees who were not
originally parties to the suit. District courts nationwide have had little guidance as to what that
showing should be. We adopt a standard different than the one the district court adopted here,
and remand for the district court to apply it. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
SHERRY LAAKE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, WESTERN & SOUTHERN
FINANCIAL GROUP COMPANY FLEXIBLE BENEFITS
PLAN; WESTERN & SOUTHERN FINANCIAL GROUP
FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN,
Defendants-Appellants. |
Nos. 21-4178/22-3182 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:17-cv-00611—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.
Argued: October 27, 2022
Decided and Filed: May 19, 2023
Before: SILER, NALBANDIAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SILER, Circuit Judge. Western & Southern Financial Group Flexible Benefits Plan (the
“Plan”) and the Benefits Committee of the Plan (together referred to as “W&S”) appeal the
district court’s 2019 remand order and 2022 judgment in favor of Western & Southern Financial
Group’s former employee, Sherry Laake. While W&S asserts several challenges on appeal, the
central issue throughout the course of this litigation is whether Laake qualifies for long-term
disability (“LTD”) benefits extending beyond 24 months pursuant to the terms of the Plan—an
employee welfare benefit plan as defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (“ERISA”). The district court determined that she does, and it imposed penalties against
W&S and awarded Laake attorney’s fees and costs. We AFFIRM. |
|