Ohio’s Necessaries Statute permits creditors to collect certain debts from one spouse incurred by the other. Ohio Rev. Code § 3103.03. Seeking to recover outstanding legal bills owed by plaintiff Michelle L. Snyder’s husband, defendant Finley & Co., LPA filed a debt-collection lawsuit against plaintiff and her husband, asserting joint liability under the Necessaries Statute. In this litigation, she contends that defendant’s lawsuit was “objectively baseless” and thus violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Van Hoven v. Buckles & Buckles, P.L.C., 947 F.3d 889, 896 (6th Cir. 2020). We agree. As the Ohio Supreme Court has clearly held, the Necessaries Statute “does not impose joint liability on a married person for the debts of his or her spouse.” Embassy Healthcare v. Bell, 122 N.E.3d 117, 121 (Ohio 2018). Rather, “[a] creditor must . . . first seek satisfaction of its claim from the assets of the spouse who incurred the debt” and must show that the debtor-spouse is “unable to pay” for a nondebtor-spouse to be liable under the Necessaries Statute. Id. at 122. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, which involves the National Pro Fastpitch League, we are asked to review a “foul ball” call in discovery. The district court imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 against counsel for the league’s franchisor, NPF Franchising, LLC (NPF), for failure to produce documents and its engagement in other discovery abuses. We affirm the award of sanctions against the individual attorneys who represented NPF, but we vacate the award against their law firm. Rule 37 does not allow for law-firm sanctions where, as here, the firm was not a party to the lawsuit. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.