Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College

[Smokey1]

Which would be a good thing judging from the the attitudes of those being brainwashed there.

Yes, Oberlin has historically been super leftist, its time for them to face the consequences of their false accusations and lies. If they have to shut down it would be a good thing.

 

[officeguy]

No Oberlin is Appealing claiming it will ruin them

Then maybe they should stop making further unfounded accusations about the bakery so they dont end up with a pizzed off judge who adds a zero to the amount owed. They have a billion dollar endowment, 30mil won't break them.

 

[GURPS]

To Dox The Store Clerk or Not, That Remains The Question In Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College


Several weeks after Oberlin College’s motion to unseal was denied, several Cleveland media outlets — none of which did significant original reporting on the case — filed their own motion to unseal the Facebook records, in a pleading that mimicked Oberlin College’s motion.

Upon reviewing that media motion, I pointed out the obvious, that the motion appeared to be a backdoor attempt by Oberlin College to have media outlets obtain under the guise of protecting the public’s interest that which Oberlin College could not itself obtain. It all smelled.

I wrote at the time:

So what’s really going on here?

When I first saw the docket entry in the case, my immediate reaction was that this is not what it appears to be. Neither News 5 Cleveland nor Cleveland.com played a major role in media coverage; searches of their websites reveal little original reporting, and heavy regurgitation of AP and Chronicle-Telegram reporting. Why do THEY care?

Moreover, there are many other documents, some potentially embarrassing to Oberlin College, that were filed under seal and the unsealing of which is not sought by the Media Movants. You can read a compilation I put together of docket entries regarding sealed documents.

Why, of all the media outlets out there, do two small media players in the Gibson’s case care so much? And why, of all the sealed documents, do the Media Movants care so much about about an Exhibit to a Reply Brief that played no role in the jury verdict?

And why did they wait until 4 months after the verdict, and over a month after the prior court ruling, to jump into the case? If Exhibit G is so important to the public interest, you’d think the Media Movants would have, at minimum, filed their motion when Oberlin College did so the court could consider the issue once, instead of seeking what amounts to a motion for reconsideration by other means.

Why is it that these Cleveland media outlets appear to be trying to rescue Oberlin College’s post-trial media strategy?

Maybe it’s just coincidence.

But as the saying goes, I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night. Let’s see how this plays out.

 

[GURPS]

Groups file brief in support of Oberlin College, free speech in Gibsons suit


A group of 22 media organizations, publishers and professional associations joined a brief filed last week in support of Oberlin College in its ongoing appeal of the multimillion-dollar legal judgment awarded last year to the Gibson family and Gibson's Bakery in Oberlin.

In a brief urging the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron to overturn the verdict of the jury in last year's trial, the group supports Oberlin College's claim it was protecting students' free speech and did not act with malice toward the family-owned bakery during and following two days of protests in 2016 that led to the yearslong lawsuit and a $30 million-plus judgment against the college.

Protesters claimed the bakery had a long history of racial bias toward students and people of color in the Oberlin community, a charge the bakery and the Gibsons denied. No evidence was produced by the college to support the protesters' claims.

 

[Smokey1]

Groups file brief in support of Oberlin College, free speech in Gibsons suit


A group of 22 media organizations, publishers and professional associations joined a brief filed last week in support of Oberlin College in its ongoing appeal of the multimillion-dollar legal judgment awarded last year to the Gibson family and Gibson's Bakery in Oberlin.

In a brief urging the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron to overturn the verdict of the jury in last year's trial, the group supports Oberlin College's claim it was protecting students' free speech and did not act with malice toward the family-owned bakery during and following two days of protests in 2016 that led to the yearslong lawsuit and a $30 million-plus judgment against the college.

Protesters claimed the bakery had a long history of racial bias toward students and people of color in the Oberlin community, a charge the bakery and the Gibsons denied. No evidence was produced by the college to support the protesters' claims.

Because none exists. They want the right to falsely defame a business because they legitimately prosecuted a black shoplifter. Somehow that's racist in their world vision. SMH

 

[Hijinx]

Groups file brief in support of Oberlin College, free speech in Gibsons suit


A group of 22 media organizations, publishers and professional associations joined a brief filed last week in support of Oberlin College in its ongoing appeal of the multimillion-dollar legal judgment awarded last year to the Gibson family and Gibson's Bakery in Oberlin.

In a brief urging the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron to overturn the verdict of the jury in last year's trial, the group supports Oberlin College's claim it was protecting students' free speech and did not act with malice toward the family-owned bakery during and following two days of protests in 2016 that led to the yearslong lawsuit and a $30 million-plus judgment against the college.

Protesters claimed the bakery had a long history of racial bias toward students and people of color in the Oberlin community, a charge the bakery and the Gibsons denied. No evidence was produced by the college to support the protesters' claims.

Well that settles it.
The Gibson';s have been called racist and that trumps a law suit every time.
The old race card. Bring it out and win. It's a ragged and worn old card but it is still the strongest trumo card in the deck.
Used every day somewhere in this nation

 

[Smokey1]

The message appears to be that minorities should not be to be expected to obey the law and you should be punished if you insist they do.

 

[GURPS]

Update on Cleveland Media attempt to gain access to Gibson’s Bakery store clerk Facebook records


For those of you new to this issue, Allyn D. was not a party in the case, did not testify at the trial, and the Facebook records were not offered as evidence at the trial. Oberlin College and the media entities want the records released as part of Oberlin College’s post-trial public relations effort to paint the Gibson family as racist. We don’t know what the records consist of, but the College seems to think it’s hot stuff, but not hot enough to offer at trial. This post-trial litigation of the issue is really sleazy.


The parties briefed the issue, with some estoteric argument about Ohio appellate law.

The Gibsons argued (pdf.) that the media litigants did not have a right of appeal, they needed to seek a writ of mandamus, which they did not do:

“A person who is denied access to court records has a specific remedy” …. That specific remedy, identified by the Ohio Supreme Court is to pursue an action in mandamus, not a direct appeal…. This rule has been consistently upheld by courts across Ohio….
WEWS has not filed a writ of mandamus here. As such, because a direct appeal is not the appropriate remedy, WEWS’s appeal should be denied and dismissed….

The media litigants argued (pdf.) that they could use either direct appeal or mandamus:

Here, WEWS-TV also has an adequate remedy at law: appeal of the Order denying its motion to unseal Exhibit G, which WEWS-TV now pursues before this Court. “Through decisional law, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Rules of Superintendence are not designed to alter basic substantive rights.” … Where, as here, WEWSTV’s presumptive rights of access to Exhibit G stems from the First Amendment and the Ohio Constitution, the Rules of Superintendence do not alter WEWS-TV’s substantive right to appeal a decision denying those rights…. And, through this direct appeal, an adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.

The media litigants also filed a subsequent brief (pdf.) reiterating their assertions.

The Magistrate issued his Order, essentially punting the issue to the panel that will review the appeal:

On July 20, 2020, this Court questioned whether an appeal is the appropriate
remedy to challenge the order at issue. The parties have now responded. Upon review,
· the Court defers the issue to the panel for determination during the final disposition of
the appeal.
Appellants’ brief will now be due 20 days from journalization of this order.

https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-co...strate-Order-on-Media-Appeal-Jurisdiction.jpg

 

[Hijinx]

The Lawyers are getting rich even if the people who deserve to be paid what they were given in court aren't.

 

[GURPS]

Appeals Court Upholds Gibson’s Bakery Massive Verdict Against Oberlin College​

On November 10, 2020, the Court 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, 2020, and was replaced by Judge Betty Sutton, who joined Judges Jennifer Hensal and Donna Carr.

A decision was just issued, written by Justice Carr:

{¶1} Appellants, Oberlin College and its Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo (collectively “Oberlin” or individually “the college” or “Raimondo”), appeal from a judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that entered judgment against them and awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Gibson Brothers, Inc., Allyn W. Gibson, and David R. Gibson1 (collectively “the Gibsons”). The Gibsons cross-appealed the trial court’s reduction of damages that the jury had originally awarded them. This Court affirms.
* * *
{¶133} Oberlin’s assignments of error are overruled. The Gibsons’ sole assignment of error in their cross-appeal is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

As satisfying as this must be to the Gibson family, it also must be bittersweet because the two lead plaintiffs and the patriarchs of the family did not live to see the appeals court verdict:

• David Gibson of Gibson’s Bakery has passed away. (November 16, 2019)
• “Grandpa” Allyn W. Gibson of Gibson’s Bakery Passes Away At Age 93 (February 14, 2022)

 

[GURPS]

Oberlin College Appeals To Ohio Supreme Court In Gibson’s Bakery Case​

This is no small matter in Oberlin College’s filing. Oberlin College is trying to convince that Supreme Court that this is an important constitutional case, and key to that is the Gibsons being at least special purpose public figures. The Gibsons supposedly being involved in controversies as set forth on page 5 of the Oberlin College filing are key to the argument Oberlin College is making on this point.

The trial court as affirmed by the appeals court, found the Gibsons were private parties. That matters a great deal to the standard of proof for defamation, and particularly the issue of actual malice. The facts outside the trial record brought up by Oberlin College go directly to the standard by which the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case, without telling the court that the facts and records, while part of the summary judgment record, were not even offered at trial. This outside-the-trial record evidence in the filing in and of itself should be ground for the Ohio Supreme Court not to take the case.

At first read the legal arguments also are more of the same mischaracterizations Oberlin College has been making since the start of the case, including that it was held liable for the opinions of students and this is a First Amendment case about campus speech. The appeals court dispatched with that argument as follows, in part:

{¶3} This Court recognizes that this case has garnered significant local and national media attention. The primary focus of the media coverage, and the several amicus briefs filed in this case, has been on an individual’s First Amendment right to protest and voice opinions in opposition to events occurring around them locally, nationally, and globally. This Court must emphasize, however, that the sole focus of this appeal is on the separate conduct of Oberlin and Raimondo that allegedly caused damage to the Gibsons, not on the First Amendment rights of individuals to voice opinions or protest.
{¶4} When this case went to trial, the student protests were not a subject of this defamation case, but merely provided a background for how other, potentially defamatory speech arose and was disseminated. Moreover, as will be explained in much greater detail in this opinion, prior to allowing the jury to consider whether any written statements were actionable, the statements were reviewed by the trial court (and will be again by this Court on appeal) under modern defamation law, which explicitly protects First Amendment free speech.
* * *
{¶25} Oberlin has asserted throughout this case, as have several organizations through amicus briefs on appeal, that any liability for defamation in this case could have a chilling effect on students’ rights to free speech at colleges and universities across the country. This Court must emphasize, however, that Oberlin was granted summary judgment on the Gibsons’ claims based on the verbal protests by Oberlin students. The trial court agreed that the student chants and verbal protests about the Gibsons being racists were protected by the First Amendment and, therefore, were not actionable in this case. By the time of trial, the Gibsons’ libel claim focused solely on whether Oberlin had disseminated false, written statements of fact that caused the Gibsons significant harm.

Oberlin College also asserts that the Gibsons were given two bites at the “actual malice” apple, which in the compensatory phase the jury found in the negative but in the punitive phase found in the affirmative. This is a specious argument because Oberlin College demanded a bifurcated trial, and not all evidence was presented during the compensatory phase. As the appeals court found:

{¶87} On the other hand, if Oberlin had not requested bifurcation, the Gibsons could have put on their entire case at the liability stage of the trial with evidence presented of both compensatory and punitive damages. Without Oberlin’s request for bifurcation, the jury would not have had to look at actual malice for liability and then again for punitive damages.
{¶88} Because Oberlin did request bifurcation, however, after compensatory damages were awarded by the jury, the Gibsons were entitled to proceed to the second stage of trial and put on any evidence they had pertaining to punitive damages for each of their claims: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relationship. The Gibsons cannot be punished for Oberlin’s choice to bifurcate.

 

[GURPS]

Gibson’s Bakery Files Cross-Appeal In Ohio Supreme Court in Oberlin College Case – Will Any Groups Support Them?​

An armada of groups have filed in support of Oberlin College, including the NAACP, Reporters Committee, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Lawyers, National Coalition Against Censorship, and Ohio Chamber of Commerce. Will any groups support the Gibsons?


Here is the standard under which the Ohio Supreme Court takes what are called Jurisdicational Appeals under Ohio Sup. Ct. Rule of Practice 5.02(A) (emphasis added):

As used in these rules, a “jurisdictional appeal” is an appeal from a decision of a court of appeals that asserts one or more of the following:
(1) The case involves a substantial constitutional question, including an appeal from the decision of a court of appeals under App.R. 26(B) in a noncapital case, pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(ii) of the Ohio Constitution;
(2) The case involves a felony pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(b) of the Ohio Constitution;
(3) The case involves a question of public or great general interest pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(e) of the Ohio Constitution.

The Gibsons now have filed a Cross-Appeal, to preserve their right to argue that the statutory cap on punitive damages, which reduced their judgment by over $10 million, is unconstitutional as applied to their case.

The Cross-Appeal is not denominated as “contingent,” which is how they cross-appealed in the lower appeals court. The reason to make a cross-appeal “contingent” would be to be able to drop the cross-appeal if the appeal were rejected on procedural or other grounds. In other words, if you can live with the judgment, you don’t want any appeals court to rule on it if you can avoid it.

 

[GURPS]

Gibsons to court: Make Oberlin College pay $36 million judgment


Attorneys for Gibson's Bakery in Oberlin have asked a Lorain County judge to order their clients be paid a $36 million-plus judgment they're owed by Oberlin College after the college failed to file an appropriate motion with a state appeals court.


Oberlin College didn't ask for a stay of a 9th District Court of Appeals ruling in March that rejected its appeal, attorneys for the Gibsons argued in a court document filed Friday.

As a result, the college should pay what a jury and court determined was owed the family bakery and its owners from a 2019 civil trial — plus interest, attorneys for the Gibsons argued.

The 9th District Court of Appeals rejected appeals by both the college and the bakery in March.

Oberlin College appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court two weeks ago. The NAACP, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the National Coalition Against Censorship and Defending Rights and the Student Press Law Center have filed briefs in support of the college.

 

[GURPS]

Gibson’s Bakery “May Only Survive for the Next Couple of Months,” Pleads With Court To Collect Against Oberlin College​

Court filing: “Speedy relief is necessary for the preservation of their historic business and the lifetime work of generations of Gibsons.”

As Ohio courts have observed: “Justice delayed is justice denied’ may be an old adage, but it undoubtably rings true.” Adkins v. Commissioner of Social Security, S.D. Ohio No. 1 :20-cv-745, 2021 WL 6134139. The Gibsons are in need of speedy justice and an end to Oberlin’s delay tactics. The Gibsons respectfully request an oral hearing or granting of their motion to enter judgment on Zurich American Insurance Company’s supersedeas bond. Speedy relief is necessary for the preservation of their historic business and the lifetime work of generations of Gibsons.

 

[GURPS]

Oberlin College Still Refusing to Pay Verdict to Gibson’s Bakery​

“For delaying making the payment, Oberlin has added on $4 million in interest to the original judgment of $32 million, raising the cost to $36 million.”

The historically liberal Oberlin College, located in Oberlin, Ohio, is still refusing to pay up for defaming Gibson’s Bakery as racist in 2016.

The college, which is financially underwater, has now asked the Ohio Supreme Court to halt the multi-million dollar judgment while it appeals the decision for the second time. Earlier this year, the Ninth Ohio District Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s finding that Oberlin committed libel, slander, and interference with business relationships against Gibson’s after it encouraged student protests over a bakery employee’s pursuit of a black student who had shoplifted.

For delaying making the payment, Oberlin has added on $4 million in interest to the original judgment of $32 million, raising the cost to $36 million. Handing over the $36 million will have enormous ramifications for the financially struggling institution, which had a deficit of $44.7 million in 2020 and whose monetary woes stem back years. The college also had a deficit in 2017, which forced it to institute a rescue plan.

The president of Oberlin, Carmen Twillie Ambar, has been defiant in the face of the judgment and has continued to deny any fault on the part of Oberlin. Unwilling to accept the jury’s decision, Ambar said in 2019, “This is not the final outcome. This is, in fact, just one step along the way of what may turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process.”

She added, “None of this will sway us from our core values.”

 

[Hessian]

"...our core values."
Um...I would like to see that list of core values.
Probably a jumbled up list of grievances, LGBTQX demands, intersectionality of victimhood.....and America must be overthrown by Social Marxists.
(Am I close?)

 

[Hijinx]

How much are they paying their attorney's to fight this?
Pretty sure the Attorney's are not doing it for free.

If they can pay attorney's they can pay their debt to Gibson's.

 

[vraiblonde]

The Lawyers are getting rich even if the people who deserve to be paid what they were given in court aren't.

The lawyers always get rich for either doing nothing or creating harm. That's why everyone hates them.

 

[vraiblonde]

If this were you or me who refused to pay a fine or judgement, we'd have our wages garnished.

Clearly Oberlin needs to be audited because if they are that far in debt (good grief, SO liberal Democrat) someone should be asking what they're doing with all that money. Obviously there's graft and corruption.

And there's obviously a tie-in between liberal Democrat colleges who are profoundly in debt, and the Democrats wanting to give them free money under the guise of "forgiving" student debt.

 

[Hijinx]

The lawyers always get rich for either doing nothing or creating harm. That's why everyone hates them.

Well Oberlin claims they don't have the money to pay the bakery, but you can bet your ass the lawyers are getting paid no matter how far in debt the college is.