CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JEFFREY ALLEN MOHLMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY; SUSAN SCHROEDER; HEIDI BROWN,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-3257
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:19-cv-00154—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2020
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves an issue of first impression regarding the administrative procedure under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Exchange Act, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and do not address the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK HAZELWOOD (18-6023); HEATHER JONES (18-6101); SCOTT WOMBOLD (18-6102),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 18-6023/6101/6102
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:16-cr-00020—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: February 6, 2020
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2020
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. In this wire fraud and mail fraud conspiracy case against employees of a multibillion-dollar gas company, Pilot Flying J (Pilot), the district court allowed the government to play audio recordings in which one of the defendants, Pilot President Mark Hazelwood, is heard using deeply offensive racist and misogynistic language. The district court admitted the recordings on the theory that if the defendant was reckless enough to use language that could risk public outrage against the company, he was a “bad businessman,” and as a bad businessman, he was also reckless enough to commit fraud. This is vintage bad character evidence—and precisely the type of reasoning the Federal Rules of Evidence forbid.

The use of the audio recordings in this case jumped the rails of those rules. First, none of the Rules of Evidence support the recordings’ admissibility. Second, and more importantly, even if somehow otherwise admissible, the recordings are a textbook violation of Rule 403, because the risk of unfair prejudice eviscerates any purported probative value. For these reasons, we reverse the convictions of all three defendants.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAVITA, INC.; DVA RENAL HEALTH, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN; MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; MEDICAL BENEFITS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-4039
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:18-cv-01739—Sarah Daggett Morrison, District Judge.
Argued: July 30, 2020
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2020
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff DaVita, Inc. and its subsidiary, DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit alleging various violations of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by an employee health benefit plan and its administrators. According to DaVita, the plan unlawfully treated a plan participant and DaVita patient—known as Patient A in this lawsuit—differently because this patient suffers from end-stage renal disease. In particular, the plan allegedly targeted renal dialysis services, which DaVita provides to Patient A, with poor reimbursement rates, in the hopes that dialysis patients like Patient A would switch to Medicare, which they are legally entitled to do three months after being diagnosed with the disease. Upon the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the district court dismissed all of DaVita’s claims with prejudice, and DaVita appealed. For the following reasons, we are persuaded that, as to Counts I, II, and VII of its complaint, DaVita has plausibly alleged that the defendants have engaged in unlawful discrimination. As to the rest of its claims, DaVita lacks a sufficient interest to prosecute them. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for discovery and further proceedings on Counts I, II, and VII of DaVita’s complaint.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANGELA D. FUERST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-4139
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:18-cv-00316—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2020
Before: BOGGS, STRANCH, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. The Merit Systems Protection Board is a federal agency that adjudicates disputes between other federal agencies and their employees. Usually, employees must appeal the Board’s decisions to the Federal Circuit. But Angela Fuerst chose to appeal a Board order to a federal district court. That court found that it lacked jurisdiction. We agree and affirm.