Mimi Geswein is an Ice Miller partner representing public and private companies both regionally and nationally in complex business litigation matters. 

She focuses her practice on providing legal advice and counsel to clients in the transportation and logistics industry.  Mimi advises clients across the supply chain, including manufacturers, shippers, distributors, 3PL's, retailers, and supply chain consulting companies. Her experience includes representation of transportation and logistics clients in legal matters relating to logistics management agreements and distribution contracts; wrongful termination and employment discrimination claims; wage and hour class actions, including claims relating to minimum wages, inaccurate pay, and overtime claims; employee misclassification; federal preemption issues regarding state transportation regulations; insurance coverage disputes and risk management.

In addition, Mimi is involved in defending class actions across a variety of substantive areas.  Mimi has represented logistics/trucking companies, national retailers, large hospital systems, financial institutions and automobile manufacturers in defending class actions in the areas of wage and hour law, medical billing, fees and interest rates, and marketing initiatives.

Mimi also represents clients in complex business and commercial litigation, employment matters, business torts, trade-secret protection, non-competition agreements, consumer sales practices mortgage broker and lender liability, and construction.  Her experience spans across the banking, retail, finance, transportation, technology and construction industries.

Mimi graduated from The Ohio State University College of Law in 1994 with honors, and served as the research editor for the Ohio State Law Journal.

Mimi's recent cases include obtaining a defense verdict in a 7-day jury trial involving a claim for age discrimination. Mimi represented a national logistics company against a class of truck drivers seeking relief under California's wage and hour laws and secured dismissal on the majority of Plaintiff's claims, which exceeded 10 million dollars in alleged damages. 
Reported and Representative Cases
  • Raymond, et al. v. Avectus Healthcare Solutions, et. al.: Case No.1:15-cv-00559-MRB (S.D. Ohio) (September 2016). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted our client Mercy Health’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint. Plaintiffs received medical treatment at Mercy. Thereafter, letters were sent on behalf of Mercy requesting that Plaintiffs’ legal counsel sign a letter of protection against any settlement or judgment recovered on Plaintiffs’ behalf. The letter of protection requested that any proceeds collected from settlement or judgment be paid directly to Mercy to satisfy unpaid medical charges owed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that this attempt to collect tort proceeds from Plaintiffs was prohibited by Ohio Revised Code § 1751.60 (A), which prohibits health care providers who contract with health insurance corporations from seeking compensation directly from the insured patient. The Court concluded that Section 1751.60(A) was inapplicable because Mercy did not seek compensation from Plaintiffs under the contract between Mercy and Plaintiffs’ health insuring corporations. The Court granted Mercy’s Motion to Dismiss, holding that Mercy did not violate the statute by seeking to recover unpaid medical expenses from Plaintiffs’ potential settlements or judgments.
  • Right Way Supply Chain Solutions v. MXD Group, Inc., Case No. 16 CV 004517 (Franklin Cty. C.P.) and (AAA Arbitration) July 2016.  Obtained arbitration award and court confirmation of award exceeding $850,000 in favor of client for breach of cross-dock services agreement.
  • Elefsrud v. Genesis Logistics, et al., Case No. 30-2014-00712149 (Orange Cty. Ca.).  Currently representing Defendant logistics company in a purported California class action asserting wage and hour claims.  Secured federal court injunction prohibiting Plaintiffs from pursuing certain claims.
  • Nguyen v. Genesis Logistics, et al., Case No. RG15787842 (Alameda Cty. Ca.) Currently representing Defendant logistics company in a purported California class action asserting wage and hour claims.
  • Thomas v. CheckSmart, Case No. 34-2014-00168533 (Sacramento Cty. Ca.)  Currently representing Defendant in a purported California class action asserting wage and hour claims.
  • Gilberg v. CheckSmart Financial, Case No. 24-2015-00182518 (Sacramento Cty. Ca.)  Currently representing Defendant in a purported California class action asserting wage and hour claims.
  • Virginia Rodriguez, et al. v. Exel Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS 1104594 (San Bernardino County, Ca.)  Represented international logistics company in alleged class-action in California involving allegations of meal and rest break claims and other California state law wage claims; successfully secured dismissal on the majority of the claims.
  • Carmaleata Morse-Byrd v. Mercy Health Partners of Southwest Ohio, et al., Case No. A1205649 (Hamilton Cty. CP).  September 2015.  Obtained Rule 12 (B)(6) dismissal of putative class action complaint alleging tort claims against defendant hospital relating to collection of medical expenses.
  • Lorine Blakely, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:10 CV 342 (N.D. Indiana) June 2015. Obtained summary judgment in favor of Defendant on claims of race and age discrimination filed by seven plaintiffs.  
  • James G. Bowditch v. Mettler Toledo, Inc., Case No. 09CVH-05-6735 (Franklin Cty. C.P.) May 2014.  Obtained defense verdict in 7-day jury trial on Plaintiff's claim of age discrimination.
  • Aguirre, et al. v. Genesis Logistics, Inc., Case No. SAVC12-00687 JVS (ANx) (C.D. Cal. 2012) January 2014. Represented commercial trucking operation against alleged class of commercial truck drivers seeking relief under California law; among the claims asserted were violations of California's meal and rest break laws and violations of overtime and wage payment requirements; on behalf of company, successfully secured dismissal on majority of claims exceeding $10 million in alleged damages.
  • Gromek v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 10 C 4070 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Obtained favorable settlement resolution for client in putative collective action by assistant store managers asserting violations of federal wage and hour laws against Big Lots Stores, Inc.
  • Schenburn v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-000098 (M.D. Fla. 2012). Obtained favorable settlement resolution for client in putative collective action by assistant store managers asserting violations of federal wage and hour laws against Big Lots Stores, Inc.
  • Cuscino v. St. Elizabeth Boardman Health Center, Case No. 10 CV 3383 (Mahoning Cty. C.P. 2011). Obtained Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal of putative class action complaint relating to Medicaid billing claims against Youngstown hospital.
  • Laster v. St. Anne Mercy Hospital, Case No. C1 201006265 (Lucas Cty. C.P. 2011). Obtained Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal of putative class action complaint relating to Medicaid billing claims against Toledo hospital.
  • Herbert v. Huntington National Bank, Case No. 25604 (9th Dist. App. Ohio 2011). Successfully defended appeal in putative class action relating to alleged improper calculation of interest rate on promissory note.
  • Wingert, et al. v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, Case No. 02-1973 (W.D. Pa. 2004). Obtained summary judgment in favor of client on borrower’s claims under federal consumer lending statutes (TILA, RESPA, HOEPA).
  • California Distributor – Disputed Accounts, Case No. 3:00CV02465 (April 2002). Member of legal team which represented California distributor in federal court against the Scotts Company and obtained $12 million in counterclaims for unpaid fees, incentives, and product returns.
  • Retail Appliance Installation, Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:98-cv-006000 (S.D. Ohio 2000). Obtained summary judgment in favor of client on claims involving breach of transportation agreement.
  • General Motors Corporation Marketing Initiative Litigation (1995-1999). Defended national automobile manufacturer in three federal court class actions relating to dispute with dealers over marketing initiative program.
View Full Site View Mobile Optimized