Case:
1:19-cv-00386-SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/23/19
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION
DEAN DENNIS AND
ROBERT BUERKLE,
Individually and
on behalf of all
other similarly
situated persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OHIO STATE
TEACHERS
RETIREMENT BOARD
275 East Broad
Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Defendant.
:
Case No.
1:19-cv-386
Judge
CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
All allegations made in this Complaint are based upon information and belief except those allegations that pertain to Plaintiffs, which are based on personal knowledge. Each allegation in this Complaint either has evidentiary support or, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs Dean Dennis and Robert Buerkle bring this action against the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board (the “Board” or “Defendant”) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated retirees to challenge the Defendant’s unlawful elimination of vested retirement benefits, namely the annual allowance increases (also known as the annual cost of living adjustments or “COLAs”), for Plaintiffs and all other retirees beginning on July 1, 2017.
Specifically, Ohio Revised Code § 3307.67(A) provides in pertinent part that, after August 1, 2013, the Defendant shall annually increase retirees’ allowances by two percent (2%) except as provided by RC § 3307.67(E). Subsection (E) of that same statute provides that the STRS “may adjust the increase payable under this section if the board’s actuary, in its annual actuarial valuation required by section 3307.51 of the Revised Code or in other evaluations conducted under that section, determines that an adjustment does not materially impair the fiscal integrity of the retirement system or is necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system.”
2. In April 2017, Defendant eliminated COLAs for STRS retirees receiving monthly pension allowances by voting to indefinitely eliminate COLAs for STRS retirees beginning on July 1, 2017. At no time prior to the Board’s vote did the Board’s actuary present an actuarial valuation or other report required by section 3307.51 to the Board determining that the indefinite elimination of COLAs was necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system.
3. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant’s indefinite elimination of the two-percent annual COLAs mandated by Ohio law without the presentation to the Board of an actuarial valuation or other report required by section 3307.51, as mandated by RC § 3307.67(E), violates the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and state laws. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves and all other similarly situated persons in the form of reinstatement of their COLA’s, restitution of foregone COLAs and reasonable attorney fees and costs.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
4. This Court has
original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the
Plaintiffs’
federal claims arise under the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
5. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1337(a)
because such claims are part of the same case or controversy under
Article III of
the United States
Constitution, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise from the same
nucleus of
operative facts as
the federal claims.
6. Venue with this
court is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
substantial part of
the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial
district.
THE
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Dean
Dennis is a United States citizen who resides in Hamilton County,
Ohio. Mr. Dennis was
employed by the Cincinnati Public Schools and had thirty-five years
of
STRS service when he
retired on January 1, 2008. During his employment, Mr. Dennis and his
employer contributed
to STRS. Upon his retirement, he was approved for a retirement
allowance
and became vested
under Ohio law in all amounts and other benefits to which STRS
retirees are
entitled thereunder.
8. Plaintiff Robert
Buerkle is a United States citizen who resides in Hamilton County,
Ohio. When Mr.
Buerkle retired on July 1, 2003, he had over 35 years of STRS service
credit,
most of which
(twenty-six years) related to his employment with the Cincinnati
Public Schools.
Mr. Buerkle also
taught at Miami University, Butler County Vocational School, and
Cincinnati
State. During his
employment, Mr. Buerkle and his employers contributed to STRS. Upon
his
retirement, he was
approved for a retirement allowance and became vested under Ohio law
in all
amounts and other
benefits to which STRS retirees are entitled thereunder.
9. Defendant Board
is a sui juris public entity established pursuant to RC §
3307.03
that oversees and
administers approximately $80 billion on behalf of the 494,000
active, inactive
and retired Ohio
public educators. Because Defendant’s assets total approximately
$80 billion, it
is one of the
largest public pension funds in the United States.
10. Defendant
operates under the provisions of Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised
Code and Chapter
3307 of the Ohio Administrative Code. STRS official Board policy
recognizes
that its board and
its members are trustees of the STRS owing fiduciary duties to STRS
beneficiaries such
as plaintiffs.1
11. As an entity
created by state statute, the Board acts at all times under color of
state
law. All actions by
the Board complained of herein were undertaken under color of state
law as
the official policy,
practice and custom of Defendant.
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
IN
2012 THE OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY CREATED A STATUTORY
ENTITLEMENT
TO ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR STRS
BENFICIARIES.
12. Plaintiffs and
members of the Class were public employees required as a condition
of their employment
to contribute a portion of their earnings to STRS. Upon retirement
and the
payment of a monthly
retirement benefit, Ohio law vests a right in such individuals,
including
Plaintiffs and
members of the Class, to receive such retirement benefits so long as
they remain
beneficiaries of any
of the funds established as part of the STRS. See R.C. Section
3307.42.
13. Ohio Revised
Code Section 3307.67 was amended by the General Assembly in
2012 to provide in
pertinent part as follows:
(A) Except as provided in divisions (D) and (E) of this section, the
state teachers
retirement board shall annually increase each allowance or benefit
payable under the
STRS defined benefit plan. Through July 31, 2013, the increase shall
be three per cent.
On and after August 1, 2013, the increase shall be two per cent.
14. Subsection (E)
of Section 3307.67 granted the STRS board limited authority to
“adjust” the annual
increases provided
for in subsection (A) if:
[T]he
board’s actuary, in its annual actuarial valuation required by
section 3307.51 of the
Revised
Code or in other evaluations conducted under that section, determines
that an
adjustment
does not materially impair the fiscal integrity of the retirement
system or is
necessary
to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system.
1 See
https://www.strsoh.org/_pdfs/board/board-policies.pdf p. 14, last
visited May 13, 2019.
15. The Board’s
authority to adjust annual increases under subsection (E) of 3307.67
is not
discretionary. Of particular import to this case, the Board may only
reduce the annual
increase payable
under the STRS defined benefit plan if the Board’s actuary
“determines” that
such a reduction is
“necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the system” and
such determination
is set forth either
in the actuary’s annual actuarial valuation or other evaluations
conducted under
R.C. 3307.51.
16. In addition to
the actuary’s annual actuarial valuation, R.C. 3307.51 provides for
four other reports
that may be prepared by the actuary under the section’s purview:
a.
An actuarial investigation of the mortality, service, and other
experience of the
members,
retirants, and beneficiaries of the system, and other system
retirants as
defined
in section 3307.35 of the Revised Code to update the actuarial
assumptions
used in the actuarial valuation required by division (A). RC
3307.51(B).
b.
Other studies or actuarial valuations to determine the adequacy of
the normal
and
deficiency rates of contribution provided by section 3307.28 of the
Revised
Code.
RC 3307.51(C).
c.
An actuarial analysis of any introduced legislation expected to have
a
measurable
financial impact on the retirement system. RC 3307.51(D).
d.
A report giving a full accounting of the revenues and costs relating
to the
provision
of benefits under section 3307.39 of the Revised Code. RC
3307.51(E).
17. Significantly,
section 3307.51 expressly requires each of the reports it describes
to
be publicly filed
with specified public offices, councils and committees. For example,
the annual
actuarial evaluation
must be submitted to the Ohio retirement study council, the director
of budget
and management, and
the standing committees of the house of representatives and the
senate with
primary
responsibility for retirement legislation immediately, but no later
than the first day of
January following
the year for which the valuation was made. RC 3307.51(A). . Id.
18. The timely
preparation and filing of the reports provided for in section 3307.51
serves a significant
public interest in allowing concerned members of the public
including, among
others,
beneficiaries of the STRS to be informed of the performance of the
system, and to provide
advance notice of
any proposed or recommended changes or adjustments to the system.
Indeed,
Defendant’s board
meetings are public meetings at which beneficiaries are entitled to
address the
Board on issues of
concern.
19. On November 14,
2016, the STRS Board’s actuary submitted the annual actuarial
valuation required
by RC 3307.51(A). The annual valuation reported, among other things,
that the
STRS plan had
experienced net gains during the year and maintained a steady funding
percentage.
Significantly, there
is no indication in the valuation report that a reduction or
elimination of cost
of living allowances
was recommended or necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the
system.
20. On March 3,
2017, the Board’s actuary submitted the actuarial experience review
contemplated by RC
3307.51(B). The experience review recommended changes to several
actuarial
assumptions utilized by Defendant. For example, the review
recommended a reduction
in the rate of
inflation from 2.75% to 2.5%, and a reduction in the assumed rate of
return from
7.75% to 7.00%. The
actuarial experience review projected that the effect of the proposed
assumption changes
would be to reduce the plan’s funding percentage. However, there is
no
mention in the
actuarial experience review that a reduction or elimination of cost
of living
allowances was
recommended or necessary to preserve the fiscal integrity of the
system.
21. On or about
March 16, 2017, the Board voted to accept in large part the actuary’s
recommended
assumption changes. Minutes of the meeting reflect that the Board
anticipated
considering “plan
design changes” at its next meeting in April 2017.
IN
APRIL 2017, THE STRS BOARD ABRUPTLY, INDEFINITELY, AND
UNLAWFULLY
ELIMINATED ALL COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR
OHIO’S
RETIRED TEACHERS.
22. On April 20,
2017, the Board attempted to exercise the limited authority granted
to
it by RC 3307.67(E)
to “adjust” annual cost of living increases by eliminating all
such increases
indefinitely.
However, as of that date, the requirements of RC 3307.67(E) had not
been satisfied.
Specifically, no
report prepared in compliance with RC 3307.51 reflected a
determination by the
Board’s actuary
that such an elimination of cost of living allowances was necessary
to preserve
the fiscal integrity
of the system.
23. Despite the fact
that no report prepared in compliance with RC 3307.51 reflected a
determination by the
Board’s actuary that the elimination of cost of living allowances
was
necessary to
preserve the fiscal integrity of the system, the Board voted to
reduce the cost of living
allowances granted
on or after July 1, 2017 to 0%, effectively eliminating future
increases.
24. As a direct
result of the Board’s April 20, 2017 decision to eliminate the cost
of
living allowance, no
cost of living increases have since been issued to Plaintiffs and the
Class they
seek to represent.
CLASS
ALLEGATIONS
25. Plaintiffs seek
to represent a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure, defined
as all STRS participants who would have received a 2% cost of living
adjustment on or
after July 1, 2017 but for the Board’s April 20, 2017 vote
eliminating those
increases (the
“Class”).
26. Members of the
Class are so numerous — more than one hundred forty-five
thousand — that
joinder of individual claims is impracticable. Membership in the
Class can be
objectively
determined based on information found in Defendant’s records.
27. There are
significant questions of fact and law common to the members of the
Class
which predominate
over questions affecting only individual members. The following
questions of
law and fact, among
others, are common to all members of the Class:
a.
Whether the Board’s April 20, 2017 decision to reduce the cost of
living
adjustment
to 0% violated O.R.C. 3307.67;
b.
Whether Plaintiffs and the Class have received annual cost of living
adjustments
since July 1, 2017
c.
Whether the Board’s April 20, 2017 decision to indefinitely
eliminate the cost
of
living adjustments was supported by a prior determination in a report
prepared
in accordance with R.C. Section 3307.51 that the reduction was
necessary
to preserve the fiscal integrity of the retirement system by the
Board’s
actuary;
d.
Whether the Board’s April 20, 2017 decision to indefinitely
eliminate annual
cost
of living adjustments without a prior determination by the Board’s
actuary
in
a report prepared in accordance with R.C. Section 3307.51 was a
violation
of
the Due Process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States
Constitution;
e.
Whether the Board’s April 20, 2017 decision to indefinitely
eliminate annual
cost
of living adjustments was a violation of Article I, Section 16 of the
Ohio
Constitution;
f.
Whether the Board’s decision to indefinitely eliminate annual cost
of living
adjustments
violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution;
g.
Whether the Board’s decision to indefinitely eliminate annual cost
of living
adjustments
breached the Board’s fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs and the
Class;
and
h.
Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched to the detriment of
Plaintiffs and
the
Class by indefinitely eliminating annual cost of living adjustments
since
July
1, 2017.
28. Plaintiffs’
claims are typical of the claims of the Class because their claims
arose
from the same events
as those of the Class, including but not limited to the events of
April 20,
2017, when the Board
unlawfully eliminated the annual cost of living increases prescribed
by Ohio
law.
29. Plaintiffs will
fairly and adequately represent the Class because they have the Class
members’ best
interests in mind, their claims are co-extensive with, and identical
to, those of the
Class, and because
they are represented by qualified counsel experienced in litigation
of this
nature, including
counsel that successfully represented (and continues to represent
under a 30 year
consent decree) a
class of current Cincinnati employees in the relatively recent
employee benefits
litigation titled,
Sunyak, et al v. City of Cincinnati, et al., Case No.
1:11-cv-00445-MRB.
30. A class action
is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient
adjudication of
these claims since individual joinder of all members of the Class
(more than one
hundred forty
thousand class members) is impracticable, and most members of the
Class are
without the
financial resources necessary to pursue this matter because most are
now living on
their retirement
benefits. Even if some members of the Class could afford to litigate
their claims
separately, such a
result would unduly burden the courts in which the individual cases
would
proceed. Further,
separate individual litigation will increase the time and expense of
resolving this
common dispute – a
dispute that flows from Defendant’s identical unlawful conduct
described
above.
31. The Class may
also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil
Procedure because the prosecution of separate actions by individual
members of the
Class would create
the risk of inconsistent adjudications that would establish
incompatible
standards of conduct
for Defendant. Further, adjudications with respect to individual
class
members, as a
practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other
members not
parties to the
individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede
their ability to
protect their
interest. Moreover, Defendant has acted on grounds that apply
generally to the Class,
thereby making
appropriate final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief with
respect to the
Class as a whole
including, but not limited to, the payment of the 2% cost of living
adjustment
going forward and
providing to Plaintiff and the Class restitution for the prior unpaid
cost of living
adjustments.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT 1: VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
32. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
33. By enacting R.C.
Section 3307.67(A), the General Assembly created a right to
annual STRS benefit
increases, subject to adjustment without legislative action only upon
the
fulfillment of
stated requirements as part of a public process in which affected
beneficiaries have
an opportunity to be
privy to the grounds for any such adjustment and to oppose the same.
34. Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiffs and the Class the statutorily required notice
and opportunity to
be heard regarding the indefinite elimination of cost of living
allowances by
failing, among other
things, to follow the process prescribed by Ohio law – namely,
fulfilling the
mandatory condition
precedent to any Board action to adjust cost of living allowances
with a
determination by the
Board’s actuary that such adjustment was necessary to preserve the
fiscal
integrity of the
system in a report provided for in R.C. Section 3307.51.
35. By circumventing
and disregarding the mandatory statutory process for adjusting
cost of living
allowances, the Board acted unlawfully and deprived Plaintiffs and
the Class of their
substantial vested
property interest in their retirement benefits (the annual 2% cost of
living
adjustment benefit)
without providing them notice of such finding, an adequate
pre-deprivation
hearing or other
meaningful opportunity to be heard, and thereby violated their rights
under the
Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
36. The Board’s
actions were not random or unpredictable such that predeprivation
notice and
opportunity to be heard was not feasible. Indeed, an Ohio state
statute expressly
provides for the
public filing of the reports required as prerequisites to Board
action to adjust cost
of living
allowances.
37. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs’
and the Class’s
vested property interest, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to
damages and all
other appropriate
relief.
COUNT 2: IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
(United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10)
38. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
39. Defendant was
contractually obligated to provide the 2% cost of living adjustment
to Plaintiffs and
the Class.
40. Defendant
substantially impaired that contract on and around April 20, 2017
when
the Board
indefinitely eliminated the annual 2% cost of living adjustment
increases, increases on
which Plaintiffs and
the Class reasonably relied. This impairment violates the Contract
Clause of
the United States
Constitution.
41. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s impairment of contract, Plaintiffs
and the Class are
entitled to damages and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT
3: VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(42
U.S.C. § 1983)
42. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
43. Defendant’s
unlawful and arbitrary and capricious decision to indefinitely
eliminate the annual
2% cost of living adjustment benefit owed to Plaintiffs and the Class
unreasonably
deprived them of their substantial vested property interest in those
benefits in
violation of their
right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United
States Constitution.
44. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s substantive due process violations
unreasonably
depriving Plaintiffs and the Class of their substantial vested
property interest,
Plaintiffs and the
Class are entitled to damages and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT
4: UNCONSTITUIONAL TAKING
(42
U.S.C. § 1983, Article 1 Section 19 OH Constitution)
45. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
46. Defendant’s
act of unlawfully depriving Plaintiffs and the Class of their
substantial
vested property
interest in their retirement benefits (the annual 2% cost of living
adjustment
benefit), without
providing just compensation in return, violated their rights under
the Takings
Clause of the United
States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Ohio.
47. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s unconstitutional taking, Plaintiffs
and the Class are
entitled to damages and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT
5: IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
(Ohio
Constitution, Article II, Section 28)
48. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
49. Defendant was
contractually obligated to provide certain benefits to Plaintiffs and
the Class, namely
the annual 2% cost of living adjustment benefit.
50. Defendant’s
unlawful actions on and around April 20, 2017 indefinitely eliminated
the annual 2% cost
of living adjustment increase and has substantially impaired that
contract
because Defendant is
no longer willing or able to honor the terms on which Plaintiffs and
the Class
reasonably relied.
This impairment violates the Contract Clause of the Ohio
Constitution.
51. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s impairment of contract, Plaintiffs
and the Class are
entitled to damages and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT
6: BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Ohio
common law)
52. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
53. Upon the vesting
of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights in the STRS, Defendant had
a
contractual
obligation under Ohio law to honor the terms of the agreement.
Defendant breached
this contract on and
around April 20, 2017 when the Board unlawfully and indefinitely
eliminated
the annual 2% cost
of living adjustment increases, thereby considerably reducing the
amount of
retirement benefits
paid and owed to Plaintiffs and the Class.
54. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and the Class
are
entitled to damages
and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT 7: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(Ohio common law)
55. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
56. By developing,
administering, and overseeing the STRS, Defendant accepted a
duty to act
primarily for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class regarding the
STRS and the payment
of benefits owed.
57. Defendant’s
actions on and around April 20, 2017 and continuing thereafter, when
the Board unlawfully
and indefinitely eliminated the annual 2% cost of living adjustment
increases
without having
proper legal authority to do so, breached this duty.
58. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty,
Plaintiffs
and the Class are
entitled to damages and all other appropriate relief.
COUNT
8: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Ohio
common law)
59. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
60. Plaintiffs and
the Class conferred a benefit upon Defendant by paying certain
amounts of their
compensation into the STRS retirement system during their years of
employment.
61. Defendant was
aware of and knew of the benefit conferred by Plaintiffs and the
Class.
62. By taking the
actions on and around April 20, 2017, when the Board indefinitely
eliminated the
annual 2% cost of living adjustment increases, Defendant retained and
continues to
retain these
benefits under circumstances where it is unjust to do so without
payment to Plaintiffs
and the Class.
63. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to restitution of the
reasonable
value of the benefit
conferred and unjustly retained by Defendant.
COUNT
9: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
(28
U.S.C. §2201, et seq.)
64. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference the prior paragraphs as if fully stated
herein.
65. As described
above, on April 20, 2017 the Board acted without lawful authority to
indefinitely deprive
STRS retirees of annual cost of living adjustments.
66. Plaintiff’s
and the Class have a tangible economic interest in ensuring that the
Board complies with
Ohio law respecting the exercise of control over the STRS and have
been
materially and
negatively affected by the Board’s actions.
67. Absent a ruling
of this Court, the Board’s actions are capable of future repetition
in the same or
similar situations to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class.
68. Declaratory
relief finding that the Board acted unlawfully is just and
appropriate.
69. In addition,
corresponding injunctive relief ordering the Board to make
restitution
of all amounts
wrongfully withheld from Plaintiffs and the Class and enjoining the
Board from
taking such action
in the future without fully complying with applicable law is just and
appropriate. In the
absence of such relief, Plaintiffs and members of the Class will be
irreparably
injured insofar as
they are deprived of the current use of the retirement benefits that
they earned
and to which they
contributed during their working careers during vulnerable years of
retirement
and, in many cases,
advanced age.
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs Dean Dennis and Robert Buerkle, on behalf of themselves
and
all others similarly
situated, hereby demand judgment against Defendant as follows:
a.
For a declaration that Defendant’s actions as described throughout
this Complaint,
to
the extent it reduces or impairs vested retirement benefits of
Plaintiffs and the Class, violates
the
United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and federal and
state laws;
b.
For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining,
prohibiting, and
preventing
Defendant from continuing to ignore its obligation to pay the annual
2% cost of living
adjustment
increase to the extent Defendant’s ongoing actions reduce or impair
their vested
retirement
benefits;
c.
For an award of damages and/or restitution representing the amount of
retirement
benefits
lost by Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of Defendant’s
unlawful acts;
d.
For an award of interest according to law;
e.
For an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by
Plaintiffs and the
members
of the Class in prosecuting this matter; and
f.
For an award of such other relief in law and equity to which
Plaintiffs and the
Class
may be entitled.
JURY
DEMAND
Plaintiffs and the
Class demand a jury trial for all issues of fact in connection with
this
Complaint.
/s/Jeffrey
S. Goldenberg
Respectfully
submitted,
/s/
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
Jeffrey
S. Goldenberg (0063771)
Todd
B. Naylor (0068388)
GOLDENBERG
SCHNEIDER, LPA
One
West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati,
OH 45202
Phone:
513.345.8291
Fax:
513.345.8294
jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
Stephen
E. Imm (0040068)
Matthew
S. Okiishi (0096706)
FINNEY
LAW FIRM, LLC
4270
Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati,
OH 45245
stephen@finneylawfirm.com
matt@finneylawfirm.com
Christian
A. Jenkins (0070674)
MINNILLO
& JENKINS, CO., L.P.A.
2712
Observatory Avenue
Cincinnati,
OH 45208
Phone:
513.723.1600
Fax:
513.723.1620
cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
Attorneys
for Plaintiffs and the Class
