ERICA BOJICIC, et al. v. RICHARD MICHAEL DEWINE, et al., DONNA SKODA; DAVID COVELL; JOSEPH MAZZOLA; PETER SCHADE; KIRLAND NORRIS; ERIC ZGODZINSKI, THOMAS RENZ; ROBERT J. GARGASZ - Articles

All Content

ERICA BOJICIC, et al. v. RICHARD MICHAEL DEWINE, et al., DONNA SKODA; DAVID COVELL; JOSEPH MAZZOLA; PETER SCHADE; KIRLAND NORRIS; ERIC ZGODZINSKI, THOMAS RENZ; ROBERT J. GARGASZ

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 30, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Richard C. Alkire, BUCKLEY KING LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Frank H. Scialdone, MAZANEC, RASKIN AND RYDER CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Skoda, Covell, Mazzola, Schade, and Norris. John A. Borell, Kevin A. Pituch, LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee Zgodzinski.

Judge(s): BOGGS, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio ordered “non-essential businesses” to close. A group of dance-studio owners sued in federal court. They alleged that various state and local officials had violated their constitutional rights by issuing those orders. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and we affirmed on August 22, 2022. Bojicic v. DeWine, No. 21-4123, 2022 WL 3585636 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2022). We held that Plaintiffs lacked standing against all Appellees except former Ohio Director of Public Health Amy Acton because Plaintiffs failed to plead traceability. We also held that Plaintiffs’ substantive-due-process claim and equal-protection claim both failed under rational-basis review. And we affirmed the district court’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ takings claim, but on the different reasoning that, though a regulation intended to benefit public health could theoretically be a compensable taking, this one did not qualify under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). Appellants now are attorneys Thomas B. Renz and Robert J. Gargasz — not their clients, who were Plaintiffs and appellants in the merits case. After we affirmed the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court issued a sanctions order granting fees and costs against Appellants for their extensive legal failings throughout this case. The attorneys appealed the orders issuing sanctions and granting fees and costs. We affirm.

Attachments: