Mark G. Arnzen, Jr.

We successfully defended our client, a private high school, in a lawsuit challenging the principal’s decision to withdraw a student for a disciplinary infraction. The student and his family sued the school, claiming breach of contract and discrimination, and sought an injunction overturning the principal’s decision and reinstating the student. We worked in a two week span to brief the injunction request, accomplish all necessary discovery and depositions, and prepare the case for trial. After the plaintiffs presented their case, we moved for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41, arguing they had failed to meet the burden of proof required. The court agreed, and in a written decision denied plaintiffs’ motion for injunction, dismissed the injunction claim altogether, and entered complete judgment in our client’s favor on that count.  Plaintiffs then agreed to resolve the remaining damages claims for nonmonetary consideration.

We successfully obtained a complete dismissal of a lawsuit brought against our client, a local Catholic parish, in a premises liability case.  In this case, the plaintiff tripped and fell in a landscaping area near the church entrance.  She alleged the parish was negligent for the installation and maintenance of certain landscaping features and demanded damages for her significant injuries.

After discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that under Ohio’s open and obvious doctrine, the parish owed no duty to the plaintiff as a matter of law.  Instead, as we established through photographs, documents we obtained through discovery, and deposition testimony from the plaintiff herself, the area where she fell would have been observable to a reasonable person if she had simply looked down.  After summary judgment briefing and oral argument, the trial court agreed. The judge granted our motion from the bench and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The favorable result for our client reinforces venerable premises liability law in Ohio and provides another precedent for property owners in the future.

Our client, a municipality, filed an action to appropriate private property for a road improvement project. The private owner challenged our client’s right to take its property and the necessity of the appropriation. A Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas judge heard testimony and evidence over six days. The court concluded the private owner’s property was needed for our client’s road project and the project was necessary to improve safety and traffic control and efficiency at the intersection. Finally, the evidence established that the municipality operated in good faith and fully complied with R.C. 163.04 and R.C. 163.59. Thus, the court determined our client had the right, and had established the required necessity, to appropriate the property for the road improvement project.  We later tried the remaining parts of this eminent domain case to a jury for approximately two weeks. 

Our client, a limited liability company, purchased property on the west side of Cincinnati that included a steep hill running down to a neighbor’s property. Prior to purchase, there was a landslide from our client’s property onto the neighbor’s property. As a result, our client was sued for nuisance, trespass, and quiet title. We filed Counter-Claims against the neighbor, including a claim for trespass because the neighbor had constructed a retaining wall on our property without our permission. Ultimately, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted our summary judgment motion against the neighbor on our client’s Counter-Claims, and the Court entered judgment in our client’s favor on all the claims asserted by the neighbor. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. See R&R Family Invs. v. Plastic Moldings Corp., 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-160382, 2016-Ohio-8125.

We represented our client and a number of individual employees in a lawsuit filed by a competitor. The competitor asserted claims for conspiracy, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-compete agreements, tortious interference with contractual and business relations, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. We tried the case for seven days in federal court before the parties settled the matter.

At the request of the court, Dinsmore accepted pro bono representation of a state prisoner who had filed a pro se action against three prison guards employed or formerly employed by Northpoint Training Center in Burgin, Kentucky. The prisoner claimed that the guards used excessive force on him during a 2012 training exercise, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court permitted us to conduct limited discovery, and we prepared for trial on our client's claims against the guards. Two days before trial was scheduled to begin in federal district court in Lexington, Kentucky, the Commonwealth of Kentucky agreed to pay our client $10,000 and return 383 days of good time credit that he had lost.

We successfully represented our client, an elementary school, in a lawsuit challenging the principal’s decision to suspend two students for intimidating behavior. After a bench trial, a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas judge found in favor of the school and dismissed the lawsuit. The Court ruled that the school had not abused its discretion in determining the manner in which the two students would be disciplined.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in favor of our client, holding the school handbook was not a contract, and, even if it was, the school did not abuse its discretion. It was an important decision in several respects. It reaffirmed the broad discretion given to private schools in disciplinary matters. It was the first appellate court in Hamilton County to address the issue of student discipline in the private elementary school context. And it was the first court in Ohio to squarely answer the question of whether a grade school handbook constitutes a binding contract on the school. In answering that question in the negative, Judge DeWine’s majority opinion represents a significant victory for private schools moving forward and only increases the burden student/parent plaintiffs face in challenging a disciplinary decision.

See D.T. v. St. Gabriel Consol. School, 1st Dist. Hamilton App. No. C-150640, 2016-Ohio-784

The State Board of Education sought to permanently revoke the teaching licenses of our client, a long-time educator in the state of Ohio. The Board alleged that our client improperly disciplined a student with disabilities and disclosed the student’s confidential health information. Eleven witnesses testified at a four day hearing in Columbus, Ohio. Ultimately, Hearing Officer appointed by the Board concluded that a preponderance of evidence did not appear in the hearing record to support the Board’s charges against the principal. As a result, the Hearing Officer recommended that the case be closed without discipline upon the State of Ohio educational licenses held by our client. The State Board of Education rejected the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and suspended the educator’s licenses for five years. We appealed the Board’s decision to the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Like the Hearing Officer, the Common Pleas Court judge determined that no discipline was warranted and he vacated the Board’s suspension. The Board appealed the trial court’s decision to the First District Court of Appeals. But the First District dismissed the appeal.

See Ohio State Bd. of Educ. v. Blum, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150427, 2016-Ohio-2918

Obtained Judgment in favor of former CEO of Baldwin Piano Company after a two-week trial in Federal Court in the Southern District of Ohio. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors alleged, among other things, that the CEO breached her fiduciary duties in the management of the Company and sought damages in excess of $28 million. Earlier in the case, we obtained the dismissal of approximately $24 million in unsatisfied secured and unsecured claims and administrative costs associated with the bankruptcy.