Montague et al v. City of Cleveland et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 27 Letter Motion to Stay. Movant TMP's request to hold its motion to quash in abeyance pending Cleveland's motion to dismiss in the underlying litigation is DENIED. Cleveland filed its motion to dismiss in the underlyin g action for lack of prosecution on August 5, 2024, Montague v. Cleveland, No. 22-cv-01878 (N.D. Ohio) at Dkt. 20. Mr. Montague then filed his opposition to Cleveland's motion on August 16, 2024, see id. at Dkt. 23. The parties submitted a joi nt status report on August 22, 2024, seeking an extension of the fact discovery deadline, see id. at Dkt. 24, which the Court granted. Based on this activity, as Cleveland noted in its opposition, the "motion to dismiss [] has been overcome by events," and as such, "the motion's prospects look dim." As a result, the Court sees no need to hold TMP's motion in abeyance. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 9/25/2024) (vfr)

MEMO ENDORSED

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 9/25/24

City of Cleveland
Justin M. Bibb, Mayor

Department of Law
Mark Griffin, Director
601 Lakeside Avenue, Rom 106
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077
216/664-2800 – Fax: [phone]
www.cleveland.oh.gov

September 25, 2024
By ECF
The Honorable Valerie Caproni
United States District Court
40 Foley Square, Room 240
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Opposition to Stay
In re the Marshall Project, Inc., 1:24-mc-00309, related to
Montague v. Cleveland, N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:22-cv-01878

Dear Judge Caproni:
My name is Matthew Aumann and I am an assistant law director for the City of
Cleveland. The Marshall Project asks this Court to stay ruling on the pending motion to
quash. (Ltr., ECF No. 26). Because delay here would also delay the underlying suit, this
Court should deny the requested stay.
As this Court knows, the motion to quash relates to an employment discrimination
case in the Northern District of Ohio. (Montague, ECF No. 1). In that case, Judge Boyko
ordered Plaintiff Vincent Montague to comply with his discovery obligations by a date
certain. (Montague, Minutes, July 24, 2024). When Montague failed to comply, Cleveland
moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (Montague, Mot., ECF No. 20).
Cleveland’s motion had the intended effect. Soon after, Montague provided discovery
responses. (Montague, Joint Status Report, ECF No. 24). The Parties then asked Judge
Boyko to extend the case deadlines. (Id., PageID # 314). This requested relief was based inpart on the pending motion to quash here. (Id., PageID # 313). Judge Boyko granted the
relief. (Non-Document Order dated August 29, 2024). Fact discovery was continued until
November. (Id.). The Court also set a dispositive motion deadline and asked for mediation
dates. (Id.).

City of Cleveland

Justin M. Bibb, Mayor

Because Judge Boyko extended discovery deadlines after Cleveland’s motion to
dismiss, the tea leaves suggest the motion will be addressed with the eventual summary
judgment motion. See, e.g., Sweigert v. Goodman, No. 18-CV-8653 (VEC), 2022 WL
168080, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022) (Caproni, J.) (deciding motion for summary judgment
concurrently with other pending motions). Frankly, the motion’s prospects look dim.
The Marshall Project now asks this Court to stay proceedings based on a motion to
dismiss that has been overcome by events and will remain on the docket for some time. See,
e.g., Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:13CV2505, 2015 WL
2195065, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 11, 2015) (Boyko, J.) (deciding motion for summary
judgment and sanctions, among others, at once). Cleveland told the Marshall Project as
much.
A stay here would be inefficient. Cleveland asked and received a continuance based
in-part in the motion to quash pending here. So should this Court stay resolution until Judge
Boyko acts, then the underlying suit grinds to a stop too.1
Because the Marshall Project’s proposed stay would create a doom loop of stayed
cases, this Court should deny the request to stay its decision on the pending motion to quash.
That said, should the underlying suit be resolved before this Court acts, then Cleveland will
promptly notify this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Matthew Aumann
Matthew Aumann
Assistant Director of Law

1

The Marshall Project not only opposed a stay earlier (Ltr., ECF No. 17), but
this cross-jurisdictional snafu could have been avoided had the motion to quash been filed in
the Northern District of Ohio.
2

Movant TMP's request to hold its motion to quash in abeyance pending Cleveland's motion to dismiss in the
underlying litigation is DENIED. Cleveland filed its motion to dismiss in the underlying action for lack of
prosecution on August 5, 2024, Montague v. Cleveland, No. 22-cv-01878 (N.D. Ohio) at Dkt. 20. Mr. Montague
then filed his opposition to Cleveland's motion on August 16, 2024, see id. at Dkt. 23. The parties submitted a joint
status report on August 22, 2024, seeking an extension of the fact discovery deadline, see id. at Dkt. 24, which the
Court granted. Based on this activity, as Cleveland noted in its opposition, the "motion to dismiss [] has been
overcome by events," and as such, "the motion’s prospects look dim." As a result, the Court sees no need to hold
TMP's motion in abeyance.

SO ORDERED.

9/25/24

HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE