Court Rulings

Plaintiffs were formerly employed as truck drivers for JP Trucking, Inc. (JP Trucking). They filed a complaint alleging that JP Trucking failed to pay them time and a half as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order No. 31 (Wage Order). Following a bench trial, the trial court found for plaintiffs and awarded them damages. JP Trucking appealed, and another Court of Appeals division concluded it could not resolve the appeal without further factual findings. On remand, the trial court found that plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under FLSA's Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption. However, the trial court also found that because plaintiffs either did not drive out of state or their out-of-state driving was de minimis, they were not "interstate drivers" under the Wage Order. The court awarded plaintiffs damages under the Wage Order along with reasonable fees and costs. On appeal, JP Trucking contended that the trial court interpreted "interstate drivers" in the Wage Order too narrowly. FLSA sets federal minimum wage and overtime requirements for certain employees nationwide, while the Wage Order sets the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for Colorado employees who work in certain industries. The Wage Order provisions are largely patterned after FLSA, and the Wage Order exemption includes employees who are subject to the MCA exemption, which exempts from the foregoing requirements drivers who transport goods in interstate commerce. Here, the trial court's findings on limited remand established that plaintiffs are subject to the MCA exemption, and JP Trucking satisfied its burden of proving that it transported goods in interstate commerce. Accordingly, plaintiffs are exempted from overtime pay. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of JP Trucking and to vacate the damages award.

An internecine conflict led to a suit asserting breach of contract and a variety of torts. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court deferred ruling on the motion. Instead, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction and ordered the parties to mediate their dispute. When the defendants refused to participate in mediation, the court held them in contempt. We granted the application of the defendants for an extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in not proceeding summarily to the determination of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate. Upon review, we vacate the three orders issued after the motion to compel arbitration was filed and remand for the court to determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

The plaintiff, Daphne Saunders, filed a complaint against Y-12 Federal Credit Union ("Y-12"), alleging breach of the parties' banking contract. Ms. Saunders asserted that Y- 12 had charged excessive fees for items presented for payment from Ms. Saunders's account that were returned due to insufficient funds. Ms. Saunders also alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and asserted that Y-12 had been unjustly enriched by charging excessive fees. The trial court dismissed Ms. Saunders's claims with prejudice, finding that Ms. Saunders had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ms. Saunders has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiffs appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that there existed an issue of fact as to which company Mr. Selby was employed by at the time he was injured. They also argued that Mr. Baird fraudulently insured Mr. Selby through one company while having him work for another company. The Supreme Court determined that plaintiff was an employee of defendant Mike's Professional Tree Services, because it had dominion and control over plaintiff. As such, the company and the individual defendants were immune from liability pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs had waived their fraud argument because fraud had not been alleged in the Superior Court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Core Terms: public record R.C. 149.43 court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 102.02(B) R.C. 102.07 reasonably identify. Overview: Requester sought access to public officials' disclosure statements filed with the Ohio Ethics Commission under R.C. 102.02(B). Respondent provided the portions of the disclosure statements that it had determined indicated a potential conflict of interest, and redacted the remaining content. The special master found that the OEC correctly applied R.C. 102.02(B) as a public records exception based solely on its determination of any potential conflict of interest. The special master found that the exception is not subject to challenge by an outside party's disagreement with the OEC's determination.

The Defendant, Revada Wright, was convicted by a Bradley County Criminal Court jury of speeding, a Class C misdemeanor, and possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of cocaine, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (Supp. 2012) (subsequently amended) (possession of cocaine) 55-8-152 (2017) (speeding). He received a sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because there is insufficient evidence to support his drug conviction. We reverse the judgment for possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of cocaine, vacate the Defendant's conviction, and dismiss the charge.

The Defendant, Billy Ray Moats, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court convictions for two counts each of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,000. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient relative to the value of the stolen property in support of his theft convictions in addition, he raises for the first time on appeal a challenge to the version of the theft grading statute applied during sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that although the evidence regarding the property's value was sufficient, the trial court should have applied the amended theft grading statute that went into effect on January 1, 2017, and that plain error relief is warranted. We remand for the entry of corrected judgments in Counts 3 and 4 reflecting Class A misdemeanor convictions and a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to serve. The trial court's merger of the convictions and its determination regarding consecutive sentencing will remain the same.