Plaintiff Lisa Huff was injured by a falling tree near utility lines that were owned and operated by the defendant, Ohio Edison. The plaintiff alleges that the tree was located on property that was covered by an easement owned by Ohio Edison. When the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, as well as First Energy Corporation and Asplundh Tree Expert Company, the state trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that there was no duty owed to the plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed this decision, finding that "there was a question of fact as to whether Huff had enforceable rights under the contract between Ohio Edison and Asplundh as a third-party beneficiary." The Ohio Supreme Court first denied discretionary review, and then granted jurisdiction and reversed the court of appeals decision, finding in favor of the defendant, Ohio Edison. On October 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed suit alleging a conspiracy between judicial defendants and First Energy defendants to influence litigation, under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Did the court rule in favor of the plaintiff? Why or why not? Do you agree with the court's decision? Huff v. First Energy Corp., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (N.D. Ohio 2013).