Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College – New Panel Assigned To Appeal
One of the judges who heard oral argument in November was not reelected, and now has been replaced on the panel by the judge who defeated her.
On November 10, 2020, the Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals heard oral argument on (1) the appeal byOberlin College and Dean of Students Meredith Raimando seeking to overturn the compensatory and punitive damage awards totalling, after reduction under Ohio tort reform law, $25 million, plus over $6 million in attorney’s fees, bringing the judgment to over $32 million, and (2) the cross-appeal by Gibson’s Bakery and two members of the Gibson family (including the widow of the late David Gibson) seeking to restore the full $33 million punitive damages award, arguing the tort reform reduction was unconstitutional, which would add back about $15 million to the judgment.
One of the Judges who sat on oral argument, Julie Shafer, was not reelected on November 3, and I thought perhaps a decision would be rendered by the court before she left the bench in early February, 2021. But that didn’t happen.
I wondered what the court would do once a judge who heard oral argument no longer was on the court, whether the two remaining judges would decide the case, or a third judge would be added. You would think that if the two remaining judges agreed on the outcome, there would be no need to have a third judge — but I don’t know what is the norm in this court for such a circumstance.
We just found out, the court appointed a “new panel” by adding one more judge. This appeared on the court docket today (h/t a reader):
| 05/18/2021 | N/A | (MAGISTRATE’S ORDER) EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE OF FILING THIS ORDER, THIS MATTER IS NOW ASSIGNED A NEW PANEL: JUDGE DONNA CARR, JUDGE JENNIFER HENSAL, AND JUDGE BETTY SUTTON. THE NEW PANEL WILL CONFERENCE ABOUT THE CASE AND A DECISION WILL BE ISSUED IN DUE COURSE. SEE JOURNAL. |
Judge Betty Sutton has been added to the panel:
Judge Betty Sutton graduated from Kent State University and received her Juris Doctor degree from The University of Akron School of Law.
As an attorney for nearly 30 years, Judge Sutton brings a breadth of experience with her to the Ninth District Bench. She has worked in private practice representing people and workers primarily in civil litigation, including labor and employment law matters.
Judge Sutton also brings significant prior public service experience to the Court. While still in law school, Judge Sutton was elected to serve as an at-large Councilwoman for the City of Barberton. She then served two years on the Summit County Council, before being elected in 1992 to the Ohio House of Representatives, where she served as the Vice Chair of the Judiciary and Criminal Justice Committee and as a member of the Civil Justice Committee. Judge Sutton was, at the time of her election, the youngest woman ever elected to serve in the Ohio House. She served in the Ohio House for eight years, leaving in 2000, when term limits prevented her from running again.
Judge Sutton returned to private practice, where she worked with the law firm of Faulkner, Muskovitz & Phillips, LLP until 2006, when she won election to the United States House of Representatives in Ohio’s 13th Congressional District. Judge Sutton served in the U.S. House until 2013, during which time she served on a number of committees including the Judiciary and Rules Committees. Judge Sutton’s election to Congress made her the only Ohioan to ever serve as a legislator at the city, county, state, and federal levels of government.
In 2013, Judge Sutton was appointed by former President Barack Obama to serve as the Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, where she oversaw the safe, efficient, and reliable U.S. operations of this international waterway.
In 2020, prior to joining the Court of Appeals on February 9, 2021, Judge Sutton worked on toxic tort claims with Bevan & Associates Co. LPA Inc.
Judge Sutton is a member of the Akron, Lorain County, Medina County, Wayne County, and Ohio State Bar Associations.
Judge Sutton is married and has two step-children, six grandchildren, and a rescue dog, named Cleo.
According to her Ballotpedia profile:
Betty Sutton is a judge of the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals. She assumed office on February 9, 2021. Her current term ends on February 8, 2027.
Sutton (Nonpartisan, Democratic Party) ran for election for judge of the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals. She won in the general election on November 3, 2020. She advanced from the Democratic primary on April 28, 2020.
Based on an analysis of bill sponsorship by GovTrack, Sutton was a “far-left Democrat.”[1]
I know, I know, you’re all freaking out over that. But not so fast. This case does not fit neatly along partisan lines, or even left-right. The two other judges are Republicans.
So, it looks like there will not be a second oral argument. Judge Betty Sutton can watch the video, and read the papers.
I assume this same panel will decide the related case in which certain Ohio media interests aligned with Oberlin College are trying to unseal confidential Facebook records of Allyn Gibson. That case never went to oral argument, and was to be decided on the papers.
I am not predicting an outcome, and as I’ve stated many times, the appeal holds much more risk to the Gibsons than the trial.
Whichever way this interim appeal turns out, expect the losing party to seek to have the case heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. My understanding, which admittedly is limited (and which I need to figure out), is that while there is an appeal as of right to the Ohio Supreme Court, the court only accepts civil “cases of public or great general interest.” Assuming that is the standard, this case would seem to fit.
[Featured Image: The late David Gibson hugs his grandson after punitive damages verdict][Photo credit Bob Perkoski for Legal Insurrection Foundation]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“In 2013, Judge Sutton was appointed by former President Barack Obama to serve as the Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, where she oversaw the safe, efficient, and reliable U.S. operations of this international waterway.”
Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what is going on here?
Good thing we have the Ohio supreme court to look forward to if you are right.
This case is becoming positively Dickensian.
Last year, we saw cases where the “justice system” had dithered for so long to deliver justice that cases were dismissed because the student who was wronged had since graduated, or the state that had been violating a civil right for decades changed the offending law before the court could rule on it.
This year, we have a case that has dragged on so long that the judge in charge of it “graduated.”
Yes, if I am ever charged with something serious, I’ll be much more receptive to the idea of having the remainder of my life turned into Kafka hell, as opposed to going out in a blaze of doing as much damage to the Marxists and their blue minions as I can, and inviting my neighbors to do the same.
No, it does not. It takes paranoia to see conspiracies everywhere, and to make it your default assumption that if a leftist judge is appointed to a panel it must be for a nefarious reason. How about there was a vacancy and she just happened to be the judge assigned to fill it, without any consideration of her political views? I.e. that things happened exactly the way they are supposed to. What kind of person routinely assumes that people are not doing their duty, without any kind of evidence at all?
Milhouse, you ask, “What kind of person routinely assumes that people are not doing their duty, without any kind of evidence at all?” People like me for starters. And with, I think, good reason. Leftist lunacy from CRT (all whites are born evil and must atone) to Defund the Police to “silence (and speech) is violence” to . . . omg, you know the drill and the pile on to all of that of cancel culture (you will be thoroughly and truly and for all time destroyed if you step out of line, or ever did, even as a teen thirty years ago, step out of today’s line) make it pretty clear that no one on the left can be trusted until or unless they prove it. Trust is earned, as it should be, now, not assumed.
This is completely reasonable given that the left has made everything political, literally every aspect of life is now political, from what you wear, to the car you drive, to whether or not you mask, to if you eat at Chick-fil-A or not. This is the playing field they constructed, the one they built, and it’s the only we have to play on . . . unless you want to pretend this historical moment and all its horrors is not happening? I guess that’s an option, but the “kind of person” who “routinely assumes” that a Democrat, progressive, commie, or whatever else they want to call themselves is a corrupt to the bones, dangerous and vile, destructive and divisive partisan hack is pretty much the kind of person who is taking today’s left at its word, listening to who they are and what they think and what they want. None of it is good.
Everything for the left is political; they are quite open about how important one’s ideology is to even being allowed to use social media, to being allowed to keep your job, and etc. So, yeah, I’ll believe what they say: everyone’s race and ideology is of prime import. Always.
What makes you think that anyone on the left had anything to do with this selection? It is completely unreasonable to assume that whoever made this selection did so for political motives, when you have no idea at all who they are or what their politics are. How could you possibly distinguish this decision from one that was made properly? How would you know?
What you are saying is not that all leftists act in bad faith, which is already a stretch, but that all acts taken by anyone, that happen to benefit the left in any way, were made in bad faith, and that is pure irrational paranoia.
Seen another way you’re saying that only a leftist would ever do anything that might benefit the left, which is the same as saying that non-leftists always make sure their actions cannot benefit the left, which means that all non-leftists act in bad faith!
Suppose you were making this assignment, and this judge’s name came up. Would you assign her to the panel, and thus (according to you) become a leftist who by definition acts in bad faith? Or would you veto her and choose someone else, which by definition would be bad faith?
Woeful naivete is not a good look.
maxmillion, paranoia is not a good look. Refusing to be paranoid is normal. Show one reason why we should be even slightly suspicious of this assignment. Not why we should be disappointed at it, but why we should suspect that there’s anything untoward about it.
I made one comment.
I am not sure where you get “everywhere” and “routinely” from that. Plus, I do not appreciate the ad hominem.
That said, I said nothing about a “leftist judge..“ I simply highlighted the passage that says she was Obama-appointed. Not necessarily the same thing.
You childishly called me a “doomer,” the other day, merely for expressing a fact-based opinion. That’s also a stupid and infantile ad hominem, genius.
You’re a dim-witted hypocrite.
I see.
There was no ad hominem. You wrote, based on no information but that this judge is a leftist (indeed, as you point out, not even that), that this was all we needed to safely conclude that her assignment to this panel was corrupt. That is what you wrote. There is no other possible meaning for “what is going on here”. And if you say we can safely reach such a conclusion from such information, then by definition you must draw such conclusions routinely, and everywhere. If there were any circumstances in which you would not, then you could not safely do so here.
Indeed, and that makes your statement even worse. There was information elsewhere in the article that she is indeed a “far-left Democrat”, and that does indicate a likelihood that she might see the case in a way that we will not like, or even that she will try to sabotage Gibson’s case. That doesn’t mean her assignment to the panel was corrupt, but it is cause for concern about what it will mean.
But as you yourself point out, that isn’t the information you cited, from which to draw your conclusion. Instead you drew it entirely from the mere fact that 0bama had once appointed her to some completely irrelevant position, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, and doesn’t give us any clue about how she might approach the case. That makes your conclusion, that her assignment must be corrupt, even more paranoid and bizarre.
“That said, I said nothing about a “leftist judge..“ I simply highlighted the passage that says she was Obama-appointed. Not necessarily the same thing.”
I cannot detect anyone saying there is a conspiracy about the appointment of this judge to the panel. I do detect a preconceived notion as to how this judge will rule on the appeal, and that is not according to law, but based upon her personal desire for outcome guided by her political and ideological bias. Based upon the prevailing theories of those who adhere to leftist dogma, and based on observation of their actions, I should think this perception has foundation.
Then you didn’t bother reading it. Alohaloha wrote: “Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what is going on here?” There are not two ways to read that. It is an explicit claim that the mere fact that someone whom 0bama once upon a time appointed to some minor office, and is now a judge, has been assigned to this panel, shows that there is corruption afoot, that someone behind the scenes is trying to stack the deck for Oberlin. It can’t be that the judge’s name merely came up in the normal fashion. and that the person making the assignment has no dog in this fight, or even may sympathize with Gibson but that’s how it came out. That’s impossible or at least unlikely, according to alohaloha’s view of the world.
““Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what is going on here?””
It’s certainly NOT explicit. It it were explicit, he would have written something very much like what you wrote. At very best, it’s implied. And I do not read it it like you have read it, and aloha protests your interpretation was not his intent.
“What kind of person routinely assumes that people are not doing their duty, without any kind of evidence at all?” Oh that is rich! Without any evidence at all? Really?? Anyone who has been paying attention has plenty of evidence that leftist judges rarely do their duty to the law, but instead legislate from the bench every chance they get. Milhouse, having seen plenty of your posts, I know that you are way too sharp to believe the false premise you just laid out.
Professor Jacobson will not make a prediction on the outcome, but I will: This will not end well for the Gibson Family.
Whether this assignment makes things more difficult for Gibson’s is not the question. We are discussing alohahola’s confident statement that the mere fact that 0bama had once upon a time given this judge some sort of job somewhere, a job that has no relevance whatsoever to this or any other case, is proof that whoever decided now to assign her to this panel was trying to put a thumb on the scale for Oberlin.
“We are discussing alohahola’s confident statement that the mere fact that 0bama had once upon a time given this judge some sort of job somewhere, a job that has no relevance whatsoever to this or any other case, is proof that whoever decided now to assign her to this panel was trying to put a thumb on the scale for Oberlin.”
I do not think aloha said that at all. I think he is asserting the likely direction the new judge will take in tending the issues of this appeal. I do not see anywhere where aloha was stating there was some nefarious or corrupt action pertaining to her assignment. I think you read too much into the comment, personally.
There is no possible way to read that into “Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what is going on here?” The phrase “what is going on here” is an explicit allegation of shenanigans; there is nothing else it can mean.
In a normal world, made up of honorable people, I would agree.
However, history has shown us that judges appointed by Democrats/Leftists tend to rule from the left – expanding some rights using novel theories not found in the Constitution, restricting other rights by redefining basic words or simply ignoring the text or the context, and using legal decisions from foreign jurisdictions, They are on the left and almost always stay on the left.
More bizarrely, judges appointed by Republicans/Conservatives are a mixed bag – many of them end up joining or issuing rulings & opinions that do not follow the relevant Constitutions, or they “legislate from the bench” – something the right is typically opposed to.
Names – just looking at SCOTUS: Anthony Kennedy, David Souter – two prime examples of Republican appointees who were severe disappointments to the right & Constitution-lovers.
So, my default assumption that a judge appointed by a Democrat/Leftist will rule from the Left, and generally ignore the Constitution in favor government/bureaucrat/Democrat interests, and a Judge appointed by a Republican/Conservative is an unknown without a track record because they don’t, as a group, stick to principles, has served me well. Sometimes I am surprised, but it’s rare.
True but irrelevant.
1. This judge was not appointed by any Democrat or leftist; she was elected, like all Ohio judges.
2. We are not discussing how she might rule, but how she was assigned to this panel. We have no idea who did that, or what their political opinions might be.
“2. We are not discussing how she might rule, but how she was assigned to this panel. We have no idea who did that, or what their political opinions might be”
I don’t think we are. I think you are. You inserted this into the conversation asserting someone said something they did not, as far as I can ascertain.
Again, “Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know about what is going on here?” That is unambiguous.
“unambiguous.”
You and I have different definitions of “unambiguous” for sure.
‘She was elected….’ Ha ha ha ha.
Betty Sutton is a train wreck; been in politics forever, . The bakers will be lucky to get anything from that leftist. Wikipedia nails her perfectly. “Betty Sue Sutton is an American politician who currently serves as a Judge of Ohio’s 9th District Court of Appeals.” Or, as famous biography states, “Betty Sutton Biography. Betty Sutton is best known as a Politician. Betty Sutton was born on July 31, 1963 in Barberton.Betty Sutton is one of the most successful Politician. She has ranked on the list of famous people who were born on July 31, 1963..”
This is just another place for her to hang out until she can run for another office.
I think the district she represented is Ohio’s worstteenth. Most know of Youngstown as the home of
I know someone at executive level at major firm who told me that all the Oberlin grads they interview are brainwashed with the woke agenda. They have not hired a single Oberlin candidate. Too much of a risk.
That makes perfect sense. If I were in their position I would let it be known that Oberlin grads should not even bother applying. That way the message might get out to kids who are thinking of enrolling there, and to those people, if any, who actually care about the college’s viability.
Recent grads yes but i believe Michelle Malkin is an Oberlin grad.
What do you mean the case doesn’t fit along partisan lines? I think it is a very clear left (“Destroy all the racists, even the ones we’re just pretending are racist”) vs right (“I was sure there were some facts that mattered here”) case.
Agree. This is a classic Left v Right bigoteering case. The Left want the right to defame and destroy anyone who offends them, the Right want to solely be held accountable for actual wrongdoing, with defamation to count as wrongdoing the perpetrator is held accountable for.
As an Obama appointee, we’d probably get a Consitutionally-guided decisions from her rescue dog named Cleo than from her.
0bama did not appoint her to the bench. She was elected to that. That 0bama appointed her to some completely irrelevant position is neither here nor there. Not all his appointments were political.
That Obama noticed her and placed her in any kind of position *is* relevant.
If one is Obama-approved, I question why.
I doubt 0bama noticed her at all. No president chooses his own appointees to that sort of minor position. People come recommended by some under-under-underling, and he rubber stamps them unless he has some reason not to.
So what. People he id aware of and trusts thrust the name before him. You make distinction without difference.
People he trusts aren’t necessarily political animals. This sort of appointment goes to people for all sorts of local reasons. Service to the party. The need to park someone somewhere so they’ll be available later. Or just being someone’s friend or relative, or being owed a favor. It’s good old fashioned patronage, not (usually) politics.
” It’s good old fashioned patronage, not (usually) politics.”
Everything you said all sounds pretty political to me. Ideological, no, but political. However, they are not going to put some one in a position that will try to undermine them or who they will need to later fight. Loyalists are placed into appointed positions. That is their intended purpose.
She had a thorough leftist vetting before she was submitted to obama.
So her appointment, from being a House Democrat to that position, was because Betty Sutton had “special skills”? Read her bio and find some for us.
Here’s some more facts from her bio to help you.
“During her first year of law school, Sutton successfully ran for her first public office, which earned her an at-large seat on the Barberton City Council in 1990.
She supported the federal government bail out for the auto industries in 2009.”
Yep, highly qualified.
Really. Not all of his political appointments were political? I am willing to bet that Obama and Biden make politics the primary criteria for selecting appointees, even if it was for something as lowly as a Federal Dog Catcher.
Look at the radicals that make up the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/whejac-membership-list-april-2021.pdf
“Not all his appointments were political”
Possibly not, but the politicians make political appointments, and political appointees are politically appointed. Not saying that is wrong. Political leadership needs loyalist to manage the administrative and legalistic state. If she were not thought to be compliant with the administration’s agenda, it is unlikely she would have been appointed to a politically appointed position.
Her political history, to include legislative service and appointment history, is indicative of her ideology. I cannot say this shows up in her judicial decisions. I just do not know, but what people are saying is they have little doubt that it will, and will expect this corruption from her until she proves otherwise, which is an entirely reasonable position to take.
‘She was elected….’ Ha ha ha ha.
I’m not from Ohio, but I sstill wear my Gibson’s hat daily. I may have to stop in again when I pass through Ohio next month.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2011/06/rep_betty_sutton_to_give_campa.html
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2012/02/rep_betty_sutton_has_highest_s.html
former Sutton staffers described her as a demanding employer who can be harsh when her expectations aren’t met.
If she were a Republican, they would have called her abusive to staff.
“I am not predicting an outcome, and as I’ve stated many times, the appeal holds much more risk to the Gibsons than the trial.”
How would losing the appeal make them worse off than losing the trial?
It’s ridiculous that the defense of Oberlin is essentially allowed to make up their own facts. It’s like they think they can just say “despite jurors finding liable on fact x that are in court records what they really meant was to punish the college despite the facts on record that were used to convict”.
It’s a farce that shouldn’t be getting this much attention. I’m just glad the Gibson’s, if offered, seem to have rejected any post-trial settlement offers.
II don’t want to predict but usually in these cases the woman gets custody of the kids, the house and a huge alimony award.
Coincidentally, I was wondering why the appeal had dragged on so long. My HOA was the victorious defendant in a lawsuit that got appealed. There were 12 months between the initial court decision, the appeal, and the decision of the appeal court. Once the appeals court heard the case, it rendered a decision in days. (HOA once again victorious, but the plaintiff had deep pockets.)
By comparison with the year between initial decision and appeals court decision in my HOA’s case, two years have already passed since the initial court decision on Gibsons vs. Oberlin. Moreover, the appeals court in Ohio hasn’t made a decision on Gibson’s Vs. Oberlin in the six months after it heard the case-versus the days in my HOA’s case.
I did an Internet search in the Oberlin vs. Gibson’s appeal, which got me back to Legal Insurrection, the grandaddy source for Oberlin vs. Gibson’s. Yes, Dickensian is the adjective to use. From the preface to Bleak House:
I have said before, judges actually do not want to make a ruling in most cases, but try and force opponents to settle their disputes amongst themselves. They do this by delay and adding expense. In a sense, it is right to have people come to terms on their own accord and not have a judge or panel insert its will which will by necessity offend one side of the dispute. On the other hand, when the dispute is truly unresolvable by private accord, they delay, cost, and uncertainty of the process and outcome places the party with less resources at a considerable disadvantage.
I guess the alternative is turn legal disputes into an actual coin toss. A motion is entered and the invariable counter-motion is also posed. Then, a day or two latter, both parties appear in front of a judge, who tosses the coin on motions. That’s not too far off from what we have now. The process to get to the coin toss is just long, arduous, and expensive. And the little guy cannot afford to get there. However, the legal system is actually designed to avoid litigation and encourage parties to settle their own disputes.
This is a case where Leftist dogma is deeply at issue and a wildly Leftist institution is one of the parties. Judge Sutton is a committed Leftist. I have litigated cases for more than 50 years and under those circumstances I believe there is a minuscule chance that Judge Sutton will rule for Gibson’s. Not zero, but miniscule. Normally, Milhouse makes good points. This time, he/she is incredibly naive.
Sigh. I have not written, stated, or even indirectly implied that Sutton is likely to be a fair judge, or that it is wrong to suspect that she will not be. I have not commented at all on how she is likely to vote, or whether she will at least try to be honest. All I have said is that there is no reason to believe there was anything sinister in her assignment to the panel There’s no reason to infer from this assignment that the fix is in. That was alohahola’s assertion.
well, like you am not a lawyer but believe stevie wonder could see that oberlin has never intended to admit their wrongdoing and pay-up–typical criminal/irresponsible behaviour–obviously to oberlin’s benefit(and expense, of course)to draw it out as long as possible before(or if)any actual legal reckoning occurs–as long as legal fees are less than potential settlement, why not?
The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.–Bleak House–Dickens