16 results for 'judge:"Nalbandian"'.
J. Nalbandian vacates the lower court's injunction against an insurance firm's former employee, finding the court failed to conduct the four-step analysis required under the Ohio Supreme Court's 1975 ruling in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah when it determined whether the insurance firm's non-solicitation agreement was enforceable. Although the client information taken by the employee was properly deemed a trade secret, the injunction's reliance on references to the non-solicitation agreement renders it defective.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-3638, Categories: Trade Secrets, Contract, Injunction
[Consolidated.] J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs and a loaded gun found during the search of his girlfriend's car. He failed to establish an expectation of privacy when he was detained in the passenger seat of her car. Defendant did not own and was not driving the vehicle at the time of his arrest, and actually told the officers several times he was not driving prior to the search, all of which prevented him from proving he had control over the vehicle. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 22-1432, Categories: Drug Offender, Firearms, Search
J. Nalbandian finds the district court properly denied a former truck driver’s motion asking for irrelevant discovery. The driver alleged a trucking company defamed him by releasing his employment records to prospective employers through a third-party consumer credit reporting company. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: 23-5568, Categories: Employment, Discovery
J. Nalbandian finds defendant's sentence for distribution of methamphetamine was not procedurally unreasonable. Although the trial court did not consider defendant's claim on appeal the government provoked his deeds by requesting certain amounts of drugs through a confidential informant, he never raised that claim at his sentencing hearing, but rather argued the facts proved he was not a kingpin, but a small dealer, an argument considered and rejected by the trial court. Meanwhile, the trial court's consideration of the drugs' purity does not render defendant's sentence unreasonable because the court used the proper base sentencing guideline and kept the final sentence within the statutory range. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 22-2158, Categories: Drug Offender, Sentencing
J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly granted the manufacturers' motion for summary judgment in a products liability case. The lack of expert testimony of causation was fatal to the patients' claims, as such testimony is required in complex, multidistrict litigation. Furthermore, the expert witness's reliance on a single clinical trial that did not conclusively prove a link between the diabetes drug and heart failure and his decision to ignore numerous other studies that showed no causal link between the two allowed the trial court to grant the drug manufacturers' motion to exclude his testimony. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 22-6078, Categories: Evidence, Product Liability, Experts
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Nalbandian finds the lower court properly determined the marijuana retailer's motion to intervene was mooted by a settlement between the city and another retailer. The order of dismissal entered by the court was final and it retained jurisdiction only to enforce the settlement, which did not involve the marijuana retailer. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 23-1262, Categories: Civil Procedure, Settlements, Jurisdiction
J. Nalbandian finds the lower court improperly dismissed the Muslim inmate's First Amendment retaliation claim against the prison guard who threatened to shut down a prisoners' cultural group unless they kicked the Muslim inmate out. The allegations prove causation and, specifically, that the guard only made the threat after the inmate filed a grievance about guards' refusal to allow Muslim inmates to practice their religion during Ramadan. Additionally, the allegations in the complaint make it clear the prison guards were aware of the Muslim inmate's treatment during Ramadan through the filing of numerous grievances and verbal complaints, all of which support a plausible Equal Protection claim. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 22-3781, Categories: Constitution, Equal Protection, Prisoners' Rights
J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly used a state drug conviction to set defendant's base sentencing level for possession of an illegal firearm. Federal sentencing guidelines do not require the use of the Controlled Substances Act and give courts discretion to use a qualifying state court conviction. Meanwhile, the trial court properly added a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment because defendant's conduct, which included firing the gun outside his home all day and briefly barricading himself in the property when police arrived, unquestionably put police and bystanders in danger. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 22-1280, Categories: Drug Offender, Firearms, Sentencing
J. Nalbandian finds that although the bitemark evidence cited by the death row inmate in his second habeas petition was not available until nearly three decades after his trial, his due process claim was ripe when the prosecution introduced its bitemark evidence at trial in 1986. Therefore, the habeas claim is a successive claim that must meet the proper gatekeeping requirements. The case will be remanded to the original panel for further proceedings.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 20-3863, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Death Penalty, Habeas
[Consolidated.] J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly allowed defendant Johnson to be cross-examined about discrepancies in his testimony about certain illegal tax deductions. He opened the door to the questions when he told his attorney on direct examination the donation from which the deduction stemmed came out of his political campaign funds. Meanwhile, the trial court properly applied sentencing enhancements based on the amount of losses defendant Johnson caused through his tax and government employment schemes because evidence in the record proved he had knowledge of payments being made to his son. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 21-3979, Categories: Evidence, Sentencing, Theft
[Consolidated.] J. Nalbandian finds the lower court properly denied the motorcycle gang members' motion to vacate their convictions for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The predicate offense used by the jury - racketeering aiding and abetting assault - qualifies as a crime of violence under federal law. Although one of the racketeering charges did not qualify as a crime of violence and the jury did not specify which charge was used as the predicate offense, the gang members were convicted of both offenses and, therefore, any error was harmless. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 21-1768, Categories: Habeas, Racketeering, Gangs
J. Nalbandian finds that the lower court was not required to consider alternatives to dismissal when the inmate sought to reinstate his habeas petition - based on both exhausted and unexhausted claims - because not only did he fail to request alternatives, but the court is also not required to inform a pro se litigant about the abeyance procedures outlined in the Supreme Court's decision in Pliler v. Ford. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 21-1042, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Habeas, Murder
J. Nalbandian finds the trial court properly calculated the starting guidelines range for defendant's sentence on drug trafficking convictions. Although he provided assistance to the government regarding other members of the trafficking operation, he was also untruthful with investigators at several points following his arrest. Therefore, the downward departure of two levels was reasonable and gave the court a proper starting point for the sentence. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 22-1909, Categories: Drug Offender, Sentencing
J. Nalbandian finds the lower court properly dismissed the former inmate's habeas petition because the lifetime electronic monitoring and registration requirements imposed as a result of his sexually-based offenses do not restrict his movements significantly enough to render him in custody. While the restrictions are certainly burdensome, they qualify only as collateral consequences of his convictions and cannot be used to establish jurisdiction for a habeas claim. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 22-1301, Categories: Habeas, Sex Offender, Jurisdiction
[Consolidated.] J. Nalbandian finds the lower court erroneously determined the creditor's second bankruptcy notice was untimely filed. Although it fell outside the initial 14-day window, the bankruptcy court extended the filing window after the initial notice was defective. Therefore, the case must be remanded to allow the lower court to consider the merits of the claims properly preserved by the second notice. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 20-2273, Categories: Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure
J. Nalbandian denies the pipeline company's petition for review, ruling that even though its safety compliance officer was on vacation when he initially received notice of a dent in its pipeline, the timing of the notice is irrelevant because the company failed to reduce the pressure in the pipeline when it made repairs, as required by statute. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Department of Transportation was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 21-3405, Categories: Energy, Government, Due Process