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.