CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES CARSON,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-3780 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:18-cr-00204-2—Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 27, 2022
Before: BATCHEDLER, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Charles Carson pled guilty to engaging in a
racketeering conspiracy. In this direct appeal, he argues that his attorney provided ineffective
assistance of counsel prior to his guilty plea and that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We analyze the merits of the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim because the factual record is sufficiently developed, reject Carson’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and affirm the district court’s denial of Carson’s motion
to withdraw his guilty plea. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
RAYMOND HAWKINS and ROBIN LUNG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CINTAS CORPORATION; INVESTMENT POLICY
COMMITTEE; SCOTT D. FARMER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF CINTAS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants. |
No. 21-3156 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:19-cv-01062—Timothy S. Black, District Judge.
Argued: December 9, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 27, 2022
Before: BOGGS, GIBBONS, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In deciding whether a case belongs in arbitration, a court
typically asks whether the party bringing the claim has agreed to arbitrate. But sometimes it is
difficult to discern exactly who is bringing what claim. Here, individual would-be plaintiffs
agreed to arbitrate certain claims, but the claim they seek to adjudicate is brought through an
unusual procedure on behalf of an abstract entity.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Raymond Hawkins and Robin Lung alleged that their former
employer, Appellant Cintas Corporation, breached the fiduciary duties it owed to the company’s
retirement plan. They brought a putative class action pursuant to § 502(a)(2) of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). But the Plaintiffs had each signed
employment agreements that contained arbitration provisions. Cintas moved to compel
arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiffs were bringing individual claims covered by those
provisions.
This case presents issues of first impression for this court. The weight of authority and
the nature of § 502(a)(2) claims suggest that these claims belong to the plan, not to individual
plaintiffs. Therefore, the arbitration provisions in these individual employment agreements—
which only establish the Plaintiffs’ consent to arbitration, not the plan’s—do not mandate that
these claims be arbitrated. Further, the actions of Cintas and the other defendants do not support
a conclusion that the plan has consented to arbitration. We therefore affirm the district court’s
denial of the motion to compel arbitration. |
|