Case Profiles
Arnold & Clifford, is a Columbus, Ohio, law firm that also serves the Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton areas. We focus on trial practice for both individuals and corporate clients, in both state and federal courts, and are proud to be a nationally recognized legal resource in a wide range of practice areas. Our attorneys have been recognized for professional excellence by numerous organizations, and our clients value our dedication to professional ethics.
Moyer v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 114 F.4th 563 (6th Cir. 2024)
Arnold & Clifford successfully overturned a motion to dismiss filed in an ERISA lawsuit. A&C is representing captive insurance agents in their pursuit of ERISA benefits that GEICO wrongfully withheld. GEICO filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Arnold & Clifford’s clients were not entitled to ERISA benefits under the ERISA plan documents. The district court later agreed. A&C appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded. The Sixth Circuit specifically held that there were “legitimate questions” as to the authenticity and completeness of the plan documents submitted by GEICO. The Court agreed with A&C in holding “there are factual questions about whether the defendant has provided a complete set of the controlling documents, discovery is appropriate—not dismissal.”
Ridge Corp. v. Kirk Nat’l Lease Co., Case No. 2024-1138, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19089 (Fed. Cir.)
Arnold & Clifford recently secured a victory in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Ridge Corp. v. Kirk Nat’l Lease Co., Case No. 2024-1138, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19089 (Fed. Cir.). The plaintiff filed a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit defendants from selling a single panel roll-up door. Arnold & Clifford argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring its claim because it was not the patent holder. Despite its arguments, the district court granted a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with A & C in holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring its claim. The Court noted that only a patentee may bring an infringement action in holding “the district court erred in denying joinder [of the patent holder] and in granting the preliminary injunction to a party that is not a patentee.”
Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group., L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-4989 (Ohio)
In October 2024, Arnold & Clifford had its most recent appellate victory with a favorable decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group., L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-4989 (Ohio). In this matter, Epcon sought contribution from defendants for alleged Fair Housing Act violations. At the trial court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Despite not being raised, the trial court nevertheless found that federal law preempted Epcon’s claim. Epcon appealed and the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Following the Tenth District’s decision, A & C sought review from the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court accepted the appeal and determined that both the trial court and the Tenth District “erred in deciding this case on the basis of federal preemption.” Because of this error, the Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case back to the trial court.
Arnold & Clifford Attorneys Win Preliminary Injunction to Enforce Supply Agreement
An Arnold & Clifford appellate team, Gerhardt “Gage” Gosnell II and Michael L. Dillard, Jr., successfully defended the appeal of a judgment worth nearly $30 million that Arnold & Clifford had obtained in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. In the appeal, the appellant, a multi-million-dollar Illinois-based company and lessor of 24 separate gas station properties, sought to reverse the trial court’s decision obtained by Arnold & Clifford on behalf of appellee-lessee, a global, consumer market-focused additives and specialty ingredients company. The appellee-lessee had successfully sued in the trial court obtaining declaratory judgment against the appellant-lessor, and a finding that the lessee had effectively exercised an option to renew the ground leases. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding that where the lessee’s failure to timely exercise the renewal option under the ground leases was the result of an honest mistake, equity excused the late notice since the equitable relief did not prejudice the lessor who took no action in reliance on the absence of timely notice and who did not change its position or anticipate that the lessee would not renew. The Court further found that without equitable relief, the lessee would lose millions of dollars’ worth of valuable improvements made to the 24 separate gas station properties. The decision is available at: Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman Ltd. Partnership | 2023-Ohio-3556 | 10th Appellate District | Decided: Sep 29, 2023.
Arnold & Clifford Attorneys Win Declaratory Judgment to Enforce Commercial Lease Renewal
An Arnold & Clifford trial team consisting of James E. Arnold and Michael L. Dillard, Jr. won a declaratory judgment action to prevent their client from being evicted from multiple gas station properties located in several states, saving the client millions of dollars. The declaratory judgment hearing in Franklin County, Ohio was the culmination of five months of expedited litigation, involving several hearings, conferences, multiple depositions, written discovery, and briefing.
The client was a multi-national energy company who was leasing multiple gas station properties from the landlord as part of a complicated commercial lease initially entered in the 1990s. The landlord sought to terminate the lease, evict Arnold & Clifford’s client, and seize millions of dollars in land improvements for itself.
The client turned to Arnold & Clifford to prevent the unlawful termination. Arnold & Clifford sued the defendant for declaratory judgment. The defendant counterclaimed for forceable entry and detainer, and another multi-national gas station company, the client’s sub-tenant, joined the fray as an additional plaintiff trying to prevent eviction. The court stopped the unlawful eviction and attempted seizure of expensive gas station improvements.
Arnold & Clifford Attorneys Win Preliminary Injunction to Enforce Supply Agreement
An Arnold & Clifford trial team consisting of James E. Arnold and Michael L. Dillard, Jr. won a temporary restraining order followed weeks later by a preliminary injunction worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue to their client. The preliminary injunction hearing in Franklin County, Ohio was the culmination of just under a month of fast-paced litigation, involving several hearings, multiple depositions, written discovery, and briefing.
The client was a well-known Columbus eatery famous for treating its customers to original recipe bagels and bagel products for over fifty years. Operating on the eastside of Columbus since the late 1960’s, the client had over thirty employees helping with the retail and wholesale sides of the business. As part of its wholesale business, it had a supply agreement with the defendant who back in 2016 had agreed to get his supply from the client for ten years in exchange for the defendant being able to use the client’s well-known family name to run his restaurants. Without warning, in early October, the client was notified, that defendant, the client’s largest wholesale customer, intended to unilaterally breach the 10-year supply agreement. The defendants claimed that they had perpetrated an asset sale and that Ohio law permitted them to avoid successor liability in asset sales as a matter of course.
The client turned to Arnold & Clifford to prevent the breach and save the third-generation family-owned company from going out of business. Arnold & Clifford sued the defendant and four of his cohorts for injunctive relief, to stop the breach and permit the client to continue to operate its business. Arnold & Clifford successfully argued that successor liability always applies to asset purchase situations when the seller purported to sell the assets to himself as buyer.
“It is always gratifying to win on behalf of a client, especially one like this one, where the win means we save a fifty-five year old family-owned company from going out of business and save over thirty people from losing their jobs in the process.” said Mr. Arnold.
Arnold & Clifford Attorneys Win $17.4 Million Jury Verdict
An Arnold & Clifford trial team consisting of James E. Arnold, Damion M. Clifford, and Gerhardt “Gage” Gosnell II won a jury verdict in excess of $17 million for their client. The jury trial in Richland County, Ohio was the culmination of over three years of litigation.
The client was the former president of two related oil and gas companies. When the client left the companies in December 2015, an agreement was signed which stated, should the companies be sold within the next five years, the former president would be treated as a 20 percent owner of the companies at the time of the sale. The oil and gas companies were sold in January 2018. Yet, the oil and gas companies refused to pay the former president consistent with the terms of the separation agreement.
Arnold & Clifford sued the oil and gas companies for breach of contract claiming that the former president was entitled to 20 percent of the proceeds from the 2018 sale.
In October 2020, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the former president and set a hearing before a jury to determine 20 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the oil and gas companies. At the trial, the Arnold & Clifford team convinced the jury to award the former president 20 percent of the amounts paid at the closing of the sale of the companies, plus additional amounts later paid to the owners of the companies, including various post-closing adjustments and amounts set aside in escrow. The jury also rejected the defense’s arguments that various adjustments and expenses should be deducted from the total sale proceeds.
After the jury verdict, Arnold & Clifford successfully argued that the former president was also entitled to interest on the jury verdict. After more briefing and a hearing before a magistrate, the trial court awarded the former president an additional $2,830,686.97 in prejudgment interest, bringing the total judgment to $20,302,136.80.
“It is always gratifying to win a jury verdict on behalf of a client, especially one of this size,” said Mr. Arnold “but this verdict is particularly meaningful given that it was the culmination of years of litigation and a committed defense.” “At the end of the day, we always knew that if the jury heard the evidence and the arguments presented by our team, they would be persuaded to award a verdict of this magnitude.”
Arnold & Clifford Attorneys Win $3.5 Million Jury Verdict
An Arnold & Clifford trial team consisting of James E. Arnold and Damion M. Clifford won a jury verdict in excess of $3.5 million for their client. The jury trial in Franklin County, Ohio was the culmination of almost seven years of litigation.
The client is a full-service property management company specializing in the management of multi-family apartment complexes located in Ohio and other states. In 2015, when the client was interested in purchasing a large number of apartments in the Grandview area, it approached the seller’s real estate agent to determine whether a well-known real estate investor and family member of the real estate agent was interested in purchasing the apartments. The investor’s interest in the apartments was important because the company was concerned that the real estate agent would steer the apartments to the family member and not the highest and best offer submitted to the sellers. The real estate agent on two separate occasions denied that the investor was interested in the apartments, when, in fact, the investor was and had been interested in buying the apartments the moment that the apartments were listed for sale. It was not until after the sale of the apartments had closed, did the company discover that the real estate agent steered the sale of the apartments to his family member.
In December 2015, Arnold & Clifford sued the real estate agent, his employer, and his real estate broker for various claims including a claim for fraud related to the sale of the apartments.
After a two-week trial and numerous arguments presented by the defense, the jury found that the real estate agent had committed fraud, and his employer and broker were responsible for his conduct. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property management company in the amount of $3,540,739.
“It was a hard-fought and well-deserved victory that the jury, when given the opportunity, confirmed that real estate agents simply cannot lie regarding real estate transactions,” said Jim Arnold. “And, lying has severe consequences for not only the real estate agent, but the real estate agent’s employer, and supervising broker.”
Directors are entitled to the Advancement of their Legal Fee
Arnold & Clifford won a victory in the Tenth District Court of Appeals that impacts many Ohio companies and their directors. Represented by James E. Arnold, a director of an Ohio corporation convinced the Tenth District Court of Appeals that Ohio’s mandatory advancement statute (R.C. 1701.13(E)(5)(a)) for litigation expenses applies regardless of the capacity in which the director is sued. The court of appeals’ unanimous decision reversed the trial court’s denial of the director’s request for the advancement of attorney fees and expenses. The Tenth District’s decision can be read in its entirety here.
The director filed a motion for the advancement of his litigation expenses with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which the corporation opposed, claiming that the statute did not apply because it was suing the director in his capacity as an officer, not as a director. The trial court denied the director’s motion, finding that R.C. 1701.13(E)(5)(a) only required the advancement of the director’s attorney fees and expenses when the director was sued in his capacity as a director.
On appeal, the Tenth District reversed holding that “nothing in the text of R.C. 1701.13(E)(5)(a) premises a corporation’s mandatory duty to advance expenses to a director on a requirement that the director’s act or omission be taken in the director’s official capacity as a director.”
The Tenth District’s decision is great news for Ohio’s directors and, at the same time, a teaching moment for corporate counsel. While companies, through their governing documents, may opt-out of advancement of attorney fees, simply deciding to sue a director in their capacity as an officer will not escape R.C. 1701.13(E)(5)(a)’s reach.