Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Folabi Oshinubi, Denzel Lewis and Clarence White v. Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC
No. 25A-CT-940

Civil. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, Judge Sean M. Persin. Judge Mathias writes that the court affirms the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Reiling Teder & Schrier, LLC on the tenants’ claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA. Holds the law firm established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by designating evidence that it acted in good-faith reliance on the landlord’s representations that he had sent the tenants the required statutory 45-day notice itemizing damages before attempting to collect repair costs. Further holds that once the firm made that showing, the burden shifted to the tenants to designate evidence or legal authority demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact, which they failed to do after not responding to the summary-judgment motion and failing to address the firm’s good-faith theory on appeal. Concludes the tenants did not demonstrate that the firm’s actions violated the FDCPA and therefore the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the firm. May and Felix concur. Appellants’ attorney: Duran L. Keller. Appellee’s attorneys: Crystal G. Rowe; Jacob W. Zigenfus; Nicholas W. Levi.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

The following opinion was issued on March 3 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Elizabeth Chitwood v. Ascension Health Alliance, d/b/a Ascension
No. 25-1933

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Richard L. Young. Circuit Judge Taibleson writes that the court affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Ascension Health Alliance on the employee’s claims of interference with and retaliation for the exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Holds the employee could not establish FMLA interference because she attempted to retroactively report intermittent FMLA leave only after her employment had already been terminated and failed to comply with notice requirements requiring same-day reporting of intermittent leave and notification to her supervisor as soon as practicable. Further holds the retaliation claim fails because the record shows the employer terminated her for failing to return to work after her approved continuous FMLA leave expired, not because of her use of FMLA leave. Concludes that evidence of internal emails discussing concerns about possible FMLA abuse did not demonstrate pretext or discriminatory intent, as the employer consistently relied on the employee’s failure to return to work as the basis for termination.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.