{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:868-f-3d-461","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:868-f-3d-461)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-11","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e0b409","proof":"sha256:4d99b0d35f58d610ecd6dab23a80b50a9d73190c38c44b68a58617d3d0178b95","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:868-f-3d-461","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"File Name: 17a0188p.06","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"DEBI MCKINNEY, on behalf of herself and all others","paragraphs":["para_7","para_8","para_9"]},{"title":"CARLTON MANOR NURSING & REHABILITATION","paragraphs":["para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraphs":["para_32","para_33"]},{"title":"Argued: August 2, 2017","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37"]},{"title":"COUNSEL","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ARGUED: Samuel Heldman, THE GARDNER FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. ON","paragraphs":["para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 2","paragraphs":["para_45"]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After the Ohio Department of Health cited Carlton Manor","paragraphs":["para_49"]},{"title":"Management Company to help turn things around. When that did not work, the nursing home","paragraphs":["para_51"]},{"title":"Sovran owes the nursing home’s employees back pay under the Worker Adjustment and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Retraining Notification Act, which requires “employer[s]” to give their employees 60 days’","paragraphs":["para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"By January 2014, the nursing home had resolved 26 of the deficiencies. Yet the 27th, the","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, called WARN by those who like acronyms. The","paragraphs":["para_72"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 3","paragraphs":["para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81"]},{"title":"This case begins and largely ends with the words of the Act. Section 2102 says: “An","paragraphs":["para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"2104 adds: “Any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of section","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87"]},{"title":"Only “employer[s]” that “order” a plant closing face regulation by the Act or liability","paragraphs":["para_89","para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"And the entity from whom the employees will most acutely appreciate any warning about a","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"Even so, McKinney maintains, the Act’s regulations offer two other paths for imposing","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 4","paragraphs":["para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"Single employer. These considerations do not show that Sovran and Carlton Manor were","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"233, 245 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding no “dependency of operations” where one company continued","paragraphs":["para_117"]},{"title":"One might argue that the management consultant as a practical matter exercised some","paragraphs":["para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122"]},{"title":"Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding “de facto exercise of control” where","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"But don’t rush to judgment, warns McKinney. Even a 0 for 5 tally, or at best a 1 for 5","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 5","paragraphs":["para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"Separate employers. The regulations refer not just to the possibility of treating two","paragraphs":["para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"But this potential path to liability does not help McKinney either. As just shown, the","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157"]},{"title":"Trying to avoid this conclusion, McKinney invokes cases in which employees of debt-","paragraphs":["para_159","para_160"]},{"title":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 6","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174"]},{"title":"Comparison is the thief of happiness, it’s sometimes said. But comparisons between","paragraphs":["para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"File Name: 17a0188p.06","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"DEBI MCKINNEY, on behalf of herself and all others","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CARLTON MANOR NURSING & REHABILITATION","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"CENTER, INC., et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Defendants,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"SOVRAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"┐","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"┘","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"No. 16-3895","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"No. 2:14-cv-00279—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Argued: August 2, 2017","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Decided and Filed: August 18, 2017","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Before: SILER, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"ARGUED: Samuel Heldman, THE GARDNER FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. ON","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"BRIEF: Samuel Heldman, THE GARDNER FIRM, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Mary E.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Olsen, M. Vance McCrary, THE GARDNER FIRM, Mobile, Alabama, Kenneth R. Cookson,","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":">","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 2","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"SUTTON, Circuit Judge. After the Ohio Department of Health cited Carlton Manor","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Nursing & Rehabilitation Center for health and safety violations, the nursing home hired Sovran","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Management Company to help turn things around. When that did not work, the nursing home","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"closed its doors for good. Debi McKinney, a former worker at the nursing home, claims that","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Sovran owes the nursing home’s employees back pay under the Worker Adjustment and","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Retraining Notification Act, which requires “employer[s]” to give their employees 60 days’","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"notice before they “order” the closing of a company. 29 U.S.C. § 2102. The district court ruled","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"as a matter of law for Sovran. We affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Most nursing homes seek reimbursement from Medicare or Medicaid for their services.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"In return, they must comply with federal health and safety regulations. Both programs represent","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"a form of cooperative federalism, as they are funded by federal and state money and the","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"regulations are enforced by federal and state officials. In July 2013, the Ohio Department of","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Health cited Carlton Manor for failing to meet 27 of those regulations. It ordered the nursing","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"home to come into compliance by January 2014, with the warning that it would lose its status as","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"a Medicare and Medicaid provider if it did not. The nursing home hired Sovran, a management","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"consultant for nursing homes, to help correct the problems.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"By January 2014, the nursing home had resolved 26 of the deficiencies. Yet the 27th, the","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"physical structure of the building, proved more difficult to fix. In consultation with Sovran, the","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"nursing home presented the Department with a 12-month plan to repair the building. That was","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"not enough. In mid-January, the Department rejected the plan and began the process of revoking","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"the nursing home’s operating license. The nursing home closed soon after.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Carlton Manor gave little notice to its employees about the closure. In response,","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"McKinney filed this putative class action against the nursing home and Sovran under the Worker","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, called WARN by those who like acronyms. The","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Act requires employers to give employees 60 days’ notice before they close a plant. 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 3","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"§ 2102. Carlton Manor defaulted, and the court entered a judgment against it. That did not do","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"the employees much good, because the nursing home had no assets for the employees to collect.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"That left Sovran, the only solvent defendant in the case. But that did not help either. The district","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"court concluded that Sovran was not liable under the Act because the nursing home, not Sovran,","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"was the employer, and the nursing home, not Sovran, decided to close the facility. As a result,","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"the district court reasoned, Sovran had no obligation to warn the nursing home workers of the","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"closing. It granted summary judgment for Sovran and thus had no need to rule on McKinney’s","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"class certification motion.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"This case begins and largely ends with the words of the Act. Section 2102 says: “An","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"employer serves written notice of such an order” on its employees. 29 U.S.C. § 2102. Section","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"2104 adds: “Any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of section","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"2102 of this title shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"result of such closing or layoff for” back pay and benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 2104.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Only “employer[s]” that “order” a plant closing face regulation by the Act or liability","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"under it. That makes considerable sense. The purpose of the Act is to encourage employers to","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"give their employees notice before closing a company. The entity in the best position to warn","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"employees about a closing is the employer, who runs the company and who decides to close it.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"And the entity from whom the employees will most acutely appreciate any warning about a","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"closing is the employer. There’s no dispute that Carlton Manor, not Sovran, employed these","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"individuals, and Carlton Manor, not Sovran, made the final decision to close the nursing home.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"That means Sovran does not fit naturally within the terms of the Act. See Administaff Cos. v.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Tow, 337 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir. 2003).","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Even so, McKinney maintains, the Act’s regulations offer two other paths for imposing","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"liability on Sovran—either because Sovran and Carlton Manor were in reality a “single","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"employer” of McKinney or were “separate employers” of McKinney. Appellant’s Br. 11, 15.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"The Act’s regulations appear to contemplate each theory of liabililty, and no one challenges their","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"validity here. “Under existing legal rules,” they say, “independent contractors and subsidiaries[,]","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"which are wholly or partially owned by a parent company[,] are treated as separate employers or","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 4","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"as a part of the parent or contracting company depending upon the degree of their independence","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"from the parent.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2). “Some of the factors to be considered in making this","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"determination,” the regulation adds, “are (i) common ownership, (ii) common directors and/or","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"officers, (iii) de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating from a","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"common source, and (v) the dependency of operations.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Single employer. These considerations do not show that Sovran and Carlton Manor were","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"in truth one entity, as opposed to two. Four of the factors do not remotely show that we should","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"treat Sovran and Carlton Manor as a single employer. There was no common ownership","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"between the two. The management consultant and the nursing home did not share any directors","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"or officers. The two companies kept their payrolls separate and did not share any personnel","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"policies. And no one disputes that Carlton Manor and Sovran operated two distinct businesses","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"that were not dependent on each other. See In re APA Transp. Corp. Consol. Litig., 541 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"233, 245 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding no “dependency of operations” where one company continued","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"to operate without incident after the other folded).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"One might argue that the management consultant as a practical matter exercised some","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"“control” over the company in view of the dire straits facing the nursing home. According to one","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"witness, for example, Sovran had authority to fire employees of the nursing home. But it’s not","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"clear that this is what “de facto control” means or that it is the kind of thing that would show that","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the consultant and nursing home amounted to one employer. See Childress v. Darby Lumber,","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding “de facto exercise of control” where","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"management of one company “would ultimately answer to higher management” of the","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"controlling company). The client in this independent contractor relationship remained the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"nursing home, and Sovran remained the consultant. Either way, the outcome remains the same","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"because the other factors confirm that the two entities remained independent.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"But don’t rush to judgment, warns McKinney. Even a 0 for 5 tally, or at best a 1 for 5","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"tally, does not tell the whole story. No one factor listed in the regulation is controlling, she","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"points out, and the statute’s remedial purpose should incline us to adopt a “flexible application to","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"specific circumstances as they arise.” Appellant’s Br. 17–18. To that end, the “overriding” issue","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 5","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"in her view is the “level of control” used by the independent contractor (here Sovran) in helping","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"the employer (here Carlton Manor). Id. at 21.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Overriding indeed. It may be true that no one factor in the regulations is dispositive. But","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"that does not help McKinney because she cannot meet any of the listed factors or at best partially","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"meets one of them. It may be true that the itemization of five factors does not prevent us from","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"considering other factors that could show that the two employers were one. But that option still","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"requires an articulation of distinct considerations, and she has not identified anything beyond the","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"listed factors. The abstract possibility of identifying other approaches to this question by itself","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"does not permit us to override the concrete approaches already mentioned.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Separate employers. The regulations refer not just to the possibility of treating two","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"nominally distinct entities as one entity but also to the possibility of treating each entity as a","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"distinct employer of the affected individual with independent duties under the Act. There is","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"plenty of overlap between the two concepts, as confirmed by the reality that the regulations list","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"the same five factors in addressing both of them. Just as some factors could unveil the lack of","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"independence between two entities—common ownership, common management, de facto","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"control of one entity over the other—those same factors also might show that the two entities","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"each employed the same individual.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"But this potential path to liability does not help McKinney either. As just shown, the","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"regulations’ five factors, whether examined singly or taken together, do not show that Sovran","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"was a separate employer of McKinney. The one factor that might operate differently in this","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"setting—“de facto control”—does not change things. There is no evidence that Sovran hired","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"McKinney, fired McKinney, or otherwise treated her as one of its employees. All of the extant","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"evidence shows that Carlton Manor hired McKinney and ultimately fired her when the nursing","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"home closed. And no evidence shows that Sovran “ordered” the closing of the nursing home, as","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"required by the language of the statute.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"Trying to avoid this conclusion, McKinney invokes cases in which employees of debt-","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"laden corporations sued their employers’ lenders under the Act. See Coppola v. Bear Stearns &","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"Co., 499 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007); Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"No. 16-3895 McKinney v. Carlton Manor, et al. Page 6","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"2001); Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local 572 v. Weslock Corp.,","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"66 F.3d 241 (9th Cir. 1995). In those cases, McKinney points out, the courts focused on “the","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"amount of ‘control’ that the lender exercised over the ‘ordinary operations’” of its borrower to","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"determine whether the lender should be liable to the borrower’s employees. Appellant’s Br. 19.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"But those cases use the word “control” in the same sense that the regulations use the words “de","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"facto control” here—as a proxy for lack of independence. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3. They recognize","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"that, at least in the lender-borrower context, a lender may exercise such pervasive control over a","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"delinquent borrower’s business operations (say by exercising its rights under a loan agreement)","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"that the borrower is no longer “independent” of the lender. See Coppola, 499 F.3d at 148, 150","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"(lender may exercise such control over the borrower as to become the debtor’s “agent, partner, or","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"alter ego” or “the de facto owner of an ongoing business”); Pearson, 247 F.3d at 478 (the “nature","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"and degree of control possessed by the [lender] over the [borrower]” might make it appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"to “pierce the veil” under the Act).","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Comparison is the thief of happiness, it’s sometimes said. But comparisons between","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"cases are all we have in law and are at the heart of most legal disputes. McKinney’s comparison","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"hurts rather than helps her cause. A lender-borrower relationship, in which the loan agreement","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"allows the lender to take control of a borrower who cannot repay a loan, offers a poor analogy to","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"a consultant-consultee relationship that is arm’s length from beginning to end. Sovran offered","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"management advice to Carlton Manor at the nursing home’s behest and did not become the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"owner of the nursing home in the process. The consulting arrangement allowed the nursing","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"home to ask Sovran to leave at any time. And it allowed the management consultant to leave as","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"well, which is just what it did after helping Carlton Manor make the necessary arrangements to","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"shut down the nursing home.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"For these reasons, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_185"}],"word_count":2139,"cites":["337 F.3d 454","541 F.3d\n233","357 F.3d 1000","499 F.3d 144","247 F.3d 471","66 F.3d 241"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6462e11942929d27af607033133afb96f51f6508f07834710278721d7814d31b","source_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0188p-06.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-07T03:15:15.866+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/868-f-3d-461","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:868-f-3d-461","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:868-f-3d-461","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:868-f-3d-461","verification":{"stored_sha256":"6462e11942929d27af607033133afb96f51f6508f07834710278721d7814d31b","recomputed_sha256":"6462e11942929d27af607033133afb96f51f6508f07834710278721d7814d31b","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-11T08:57:10.621Z"}},"hash":"sha256:4d99b0d35f58d610ecd6dab23a80b50a9d73190c38c44b68a58617d3d0178b95","version":"legal-2026-10-11","expires":"2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T08:50:07","content_hash":"sha256:4d99b0d35f58d610ecd6dab23a80b50a9d73190c38c44b68a58617d3d0178b95","revalidate_after":"2026-10-11T09:57:10.751Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:868-f-3d-461","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:868-f-3d-461"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:868-f-3d-461"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:868-f-3d-461"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/868-f-3d-461","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-ed7ef7b1a4eb1e91619938d40110b6bf","response_hash":"sha256:4d99b0d35f58d610ecd6dab23a80b50a9d73190c38c44b68a58617d3d0178b95"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T06:31:32.373Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3A868-f-3d-461&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":9991}}