dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
513-951-7124
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440

Blog

Public Defenders File Class Action Lawsuit Against Montgomery County for Equal Pay and Resources

By

A group of current and former employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking to address longstanding disparities in compensation and resources between public defenders and prosecutors in Montgomery County. The lawsuit, brought by Michael Dailey, William Ehrstine, Susan Souther, Travis Dunnington, Paul Nerone, Cynthia Packet, and Debra Burs on behalf of all similarly situated employees, names Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Defender Commission as defendants.

The complaint alleges that Montgomery County and its Public Defender Commission have systematically failed to provide public defenders with salaries, benefits, and resources that are substantially equivalent to those provided to prosecutors, as required by Ohio law and the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The plaintiffs assert that this disparity violates their rights to equal protection and due process, as well as the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants.

According to the complaint, Ohio Administrative Code Section 120-1-06 mandates that public defender attorneys’ salaries “shall approximate and be in parity with the compensation received by prosecutors with comparable years in practice and experience.” The lawsuit details significant gaps in pay and bonuses between the two offices, with prosecutors receiving far greater compensation and additional year-end bonuses, while public defenders are left behind.

The plaintiffs seek damages, back pay, and injunctive relief to compel Montgomery County to comply with its legal obligations and ensure parity in pay and resources between public defenders and prosecutors. The complaint also requests a writ of mandamus requiring the County to take all necessary actions to bring the Public Defender’s Office into compliance with state law and constitutional mandates.

“This lawsuit is about fairness, equality, and the right of every person—regardless of income—to have access to effective legal representation,” said Nicole M. Lundrigan, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Montgomery County’s failure to provide public defenders with equal pay and resources not only harms dedicated public servants but also undermines the constitutional rights of the people they serve.”

“We intend to vindicate the constitutional rights of both criminal defendants in Montgomery County and the lawyers and support staff represent them” added Marc Dann of co-counsel Dann Law

The class action seeks to represent all past and present employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender from 2015 to the present.

DannLaw files suit to Block State’s Plan to Confiscate and use Ohioans’ Unclaimed Funds to Subsidize Privately Owned Browns Stadium

By

DannLaw filed a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on Monday, July 7, 2025 seeking an injunction to stop the State of Ohio from confiscating more than $1,000,000,000 from the state’s Unclaimed Funds Account (UFA) and using the money to underwrite a proposed new stadium for the Cleveland Browns as well as other privately owned sports facilities. A scheme mandating the seizure and diversion of UFA funds was included in the recently enacted state budget.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three named Ohio residents and a class that includes “All individuals and entities whose funds are being held in the Ohio Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund as of June 30, 2025” alleges that the seizure of unclaimed funds held in trust for Ohioans violates multiple provisions of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, including the Takings Clause, due process protections, and Ohio’s strong constitutional guarantee that private property “shall ever be held inviolate.”

“The State of Ohio intends to steal over a billion dollars in private property from its citizens and pour it into the pockets of Jimmy Haslam, one of America’s richest men,” Jeffrey A. Crossman, lead counsel and former Ohio legislator said. “Everyday Ohioans are rightfully outraged by this blatant abuse of power. The government can’t just take someone’s property and give it to someone else.  This type of outrageous behavior ignited the American revolution 250 years ago. Unfortunately, the majority in the General Assembly and the governor are ignoring the lesson King George learned at Bunker Hill.”

According to former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, numerous Ohioans and nationally renowned Constitutional scholars have contacted him since the DannLaw legal team announced on June 25 that they would file suit if the proposed looting of the UFA became law.  “Their message has been loud and clear: what the State is doing isn’t just wrong—it violates the very reason we have constitutions and laws,” Dann said.

“The provisions of Ohio’s Constitution that protect private property from being taken for private use are not a suggestion, they are a command,” Dann continued. The legislature and governor have no authority to convert Ohioan’s private property into a slush fund that can be used to subsidize a billionaire campaign contributor’s private football stadium. We’re filing this case because the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy and because no one, no matter how wealthy or politically connected they may be, can be allowed to blithely ignore the Constitution.”

Dann also noted that even Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost opposes the UFS scheme and urged Governor Mike DeWine to line item veto the proposal: “I oppose not only this funding mechanism but also its intent: billionaires should finance their own stadiums – full stop. Ohio taxpayers cannot be left on the side lines while the wealthiest score with public money.”

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the State from enforcing the new law, prevent the reallocation of unclaimed funds, and compel the State to notify all affected property owners.

A copy of the complaint and exhibits may be viewed and downloaded here: Skierski Al 2025 07 07 Browns Stadium Complaint FINAL

Court Orders Ohio to Reinstate Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) Program, Securing Potentially $900 Million in Benefits for Eligible Ohioans

By

Columbus, Ohio — In a landmark decision issued Tuesday, June 30, 2025, the Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s order requiring Governor Mike DeWine and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) to take all necessary actions to reinstate Ohio’s participation in the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) program.  The ruling could result in the distribution of up to $900 million in additional unemployment benefits to eligible Ohioans who were denied payments after the state’s early withdrawal from the program in 2021. You may read and download the decision here: Bowling COA decision

The case, State ex rel.  Candy Bowling et al.  v. Michael DeWine, Governor of Ohio, et al., centered on Governor DeWine’s decision to terminate Ohio’s participation in the federally funded FPUC program, which provided supplemental unemployment benefits to workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Plaintiffs, representing a class of affected Ohioans, argued that the Governor’s action violated Ohio law, specifically R.C.  4141.43(I), which requires the state to cooperate with the federal government to secure all available advantages under federal unemployment programs.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the state to rescind its early termination of the FPUC program and to seek retroactive benefits for the period from June 26 to September 6, 2021.  Governor DeWine appealed, arguing that the case was moot and that Ohio law did not require the state to accept federal pandemic funds.

In today’s decision, the Court of Appeals rejected both arguments, holding:

  • The case is not moot because it remains possible for Ohio to retroactively reinstate its participation in the FPUC program and obtain federal funds for eligible claimants. The U.S. Department of Labor has confirmed its willingness to consider such a request, even after the program’s expiration, particularly in response to a court order.
  • The law of the case, as established in a prior appellate decision (Bowling I), requires the Governor to secure all available federal unemployment benefits for Ohioans, including those provided under the CARES Act and FPUC program.
  • The Supreme Court of Ohio’s prior dismissal of an interlocutory appeal as moot did not resolve the underlying claims for relief, nor did it preclude the trial court or appellate court from addressing the merits of the case.

The Court of Appeals concluded: “For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Governor DeWine’s two assignments of error, and we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.  … We remand this matter to the trial court for execution.”

What This Means for Ohioans

The decision paves the way for the state to seek and distribute retroactive FPUC benefits to eligible Ohioans who were denied payments after June 26, 2021. The court’s ruling underscores the state’s legal obligation to secure all available federal unemployment benefits for its citizens.

Statement from Plaintiffs’ Counsel Marc Dann

“We are gratified that the Court has affirmed the rights of Ohio workers and families who were unjustly denied critical pandemic relief,” said Marc E. Dann, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “This decision is a victory for the rule of law and for the thousands of Ohioans who continue to struggle with the economic fallout of COVID-19.”

“This decision is especially important in light of the reductions in food assistance and other benefits that are reflected in the State Budget which the Governor will be signing today and the coming reductions in Medicaid including in the Big Beautiful Bill being debated today in the United States Senate.  Injecting up to $3000 into 300,000 working class households will temporarily take the sting out of those cuts.” added Dann

 Next Steps

The case will return to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for execution of the judgment.  Governor DeWine and ODJFS are now under court order to take all necessary steps to reinstate Ohio’s participation in the FPUC program for the relevant period and to obtain and distribute the benefits to eligible claimants.

Media Contact:
Marc E. Dann
DannLaw
330-651-3131
[email protected]

About the FPUC Program:

The Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) program was established under the CARES Act to provide supplemental unemployment benefits to workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The program initially provided an extra $600 per week, later reduced to $300 per week, for eligible claimants.

DannLaw will file class action law suit challenging legality of using $600 million from Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Trust to finance new Browns stadium if scheme becomes law

By

Ohio BankruptcyCOLUMBUS, OH — Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former State Representative Jeffrey A. Crossman announced today that they will challenge the legality of using $600 million from Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Trust (UFT) to finance a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns if the scheme is included in the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 biennial budget and signed into law.

Dann and Crossman said they have drafted and will immediately file a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on behalf of three Cuyahoga County residents and all others with funds held in the UFT if the General Assembly and Governor Mike DeWine move forward with what the attorneys say is an “unconscionable, unconstitutional, and blatantly illegal confiscation of Ohioans’ private property .” View/download the draft complaint here: Browns Stadium Complaint

The draft complaint asserts that the State of Ohio intends to confiscate Ohioans’ “unclaimed funds” and divert them from their intended purpose—to be held and preserved for the benefit of the rightful owners—to finance the construction of a private sports stadium for the Cleveland Browns and further alleges that the raid on the UFT:

  • Violates the Takings Clause set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution which says in pertinent part that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
  • Violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment which says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • Violates Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution which protects private property from being taken for private use or without just compensation.
  • Represents a breach of the state’s Fiduciary Duty to serve as a custodian of the funds in the UFC under the provisions of ORC 169. 01

“The majority in the General Assembly and the Governor may think it’s acceptable to pick the pockets of Ohio’s working families to reward billionaire Jimmy Haslam for his huge political contributions, but we think it’s fundamentally wrong. That is why we’ll be standing at the courthouse door ready to file this lawsuit when and if this unprecedented abuse of the public trust actually becomes law,” Dann said.

“The Ohio Supreme Court has been crystal clear: unclaimed funds are not state property-it’s private property.,” Crossman commented.  “This case is about protecting Ohioans’ constitutional rights and stopping the legislature from liquidating private property and turning it into a billionaire’s building fund. Ohioans shouldn’t have to race the clock to reclaim what’s already theirs.”

In addition to the legal arguments and settled case law protecting private property, Dann and Crossman cite a skeptical report issued by the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission in April 2025 that concluded the following:

“The academic literature on publicly funded sports stadiums is vast, covering many decades, sports, states and municipalities…The overwhelming conclusion from this body of research is that there are little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity. A second conclusion is that the level of government subsidies given for the construction of facilities far exceeds any observed economic benefits when they do exist.” View the LSC report here: LSC_Stadium_Analysis_Redacted

“The law is unambiguous: before the government can take someone’s private property, there must be a public use for the taking.  Here, there’s no public use — this is just a payout to a billionaire,” Crossman said. “If the legislature plans to fund luxury developments for the wealthy, they should find a legal way that doesn’t involve violating the fundamental property rights of Ohioans.  They need to go back to the drawing board or, better yet, tell this billionaire to pay for it himself.”

For additional information contact Jeffrey A. Crossman:  [email protected]; Marc E. Dann: [email protected], or phone 330-651-3131.

When Law Firms Face Tyranny: A Call to Lawyers from Marc Dann

By

DannLaw founder Marc Dann
Attorney Marc Dann

The law firms targeted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders deserve our profession’s unwavering support as they defend the Constitution. Every lawyer and bar association across America should stand with them in this fight for judicial independence (the Cleveland Metro Bar was among the first to take a stand).

Yet, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many of these same firms helped create the environment that made Trump’s rise possible.

Before becoming victims of Trump’s transparently corrupt attacks, these prestigious firms participated in the culture of behind-the-scenes influence peddling that eroded public trust in our institutions. Their lobbying practices and the revolving door between government service and private practice fostered a two-tier system of justice that alienated working-class Americans and drove them toward dangerous populist alternatives like Donald Trump. The massive donations from these firms to candidates and parties helped corrupt both Democrats and Republicans.

Most attorneys in America don’t earn their living through influence pedaling. While we must defend these targeted firms, we should recognize that they serve the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America, charging four-figure hourly rates that place them beyond the reach of ordinary citizens.

The brazen nature of President Trump’s executive orders against Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Covington and Burling, Jenner and Block, and Wilmer Hale was shocking. These orders prohibited these firms from representing the federal government, canceled contracts with their clients, revoked necessary security clearances and barred their personnel from federal buildings—a clear unconstitutional assault on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Even more disturbing has been the capitulation we’ve witnessed. Paul Weiss’s surrender was followed by similar settlements from Skadden Arps and Wilkie Farr and Gallagher and five other firms.  These once-respected institutions abandoned their diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments and pledged millions of pro bono hours to Trump-endorsed causes. The rest of the top law firms in the country by revenue joined the hall of shame by refusing to sign a brief in support of Perkins Coie,

 

These lawyers have  chosen profit over principle when given the chance to defend our profession’s independence and the Constitution itself.

With these elite firms either fighting for survival, capitulating to presidential pressure or hiding under their desks, the rest of the bar must fill the void. Those of us who charge far less than $1,000 per hour must step forward to protect democracy and prevent authoritarian overreach.

Here in Ohio we can educate the public, represent immigrants facing deportation, defend wrongfully terminated federal employees, represent the defunded non profits and local governments that are literally  saving lives and providing vital services to our communities and bring constitutional challenges against authoritarian policies that usurp congressional authority.

Over my 38 years in practice I’ve  worked with great consumer, personal injury, domestic, bankruptcy, criminal, government and transactional lawyers representing working and middle class Americans and small businesses. These lawyer’s courtroom and analytic skills are every bit as strong as our tall building lawyer counterparts. Lawyers in every community need to organize and collaborate to make sure that every attack on individual liberty and constitutional protection is challenged as the administration continues to flood the zone with their efforts to break historic legal precedents to consolidate power and to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the rest of us.

As some of our profession’s most powerful institutions retreat from the field, the burden falls on us—the everyday lawyers of America—to champion individual rights and defend constitutional boundaries. The future of our republic may well depend on our willingness to answer this call.

Judge Holbrook issues stay in FPUC case

By

A quick update of the FPUC case. After a hearing on the afternoon of February 24, Judge Holbrook issued a stay  of his earlier decision in which he ordered the state to obtain the FPUC funds from the U.S. Department of Labor. You may read the order here. We will of course appeal this decision.

Separately, we have asked the Tenth District Court of Appeals for an order requiring the Governor to send a letter to the Federal Government requesting the money.  That motion will be fully briefed on Monday March 3, one week from today. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will see things differently than Judge Holbrook.

We have no idea why the Governor continues to refuse to ask for and at the very least secure the $900 Million in benefits owed to 330,000 Ohioans.  Nothing in Judge Holbrook’s stay prevents him from asking for the money right now.  The State’s right to appeal won’t be prejudiced and the state will be protected from the risk that if the federal dollars are reappropriated we would take action to obtain the money from the State of Ohio.

We hope the Governor reconsiders.  Please keep encouraging him to do so.

We expect the Court of Appeals to consider this matter on an expedited basis.