CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
NOVUS GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 22-3736 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:19-cv-00208—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: May 4, 2023
Decided and Filed: July 17, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Two Columbus businessmen saw an opportunity
in the annuities market. They founded Novus Group and developed a product to fill the gap.
Using a third party, Novus pitched its new concept to a Columbus-based insurance titan,
Nationwide. Not long thereafter, two Nationwide employees left the company to join another
insurance giant, Prudential. Prudential later launched an annuity product that was purportedly
just like Novus’s idea. Believing its concept had been stolen, Novus sued Prudential. The
company’s complaint alleged that Prudential engaged in trade secrets misappropriation, in
violation of Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The district court granted summary judgment to
Prudential. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JAQUETTA ANN COOPWOOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN; JONITH WATTS, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 22-1485 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-12092—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: May 1, 2023
Decided and Filed: July 17, 2023
Before: GILMAN, READLER, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Jaquetta Ann Coopwood was around six-months pregnant and incarcerated in the Wayne County Jail (the Jail) when she was allegedly
kicked in the stomach by Deputy Jailer Jonith Watts. After losing her child in a stillbirth,
Coopwood brought suit against Watts and Wayne County (collectively, Defendants). The
district court found that Coopwood, despite having a documented history of severe mental
illness, had not exhausted her available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA). It therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants based on
this procedural deficiency. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the
district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
|