Shell v. Ohio Family Rights et al

Filing 35

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/22/16. For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court grants the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order issued 3/1/16 and finds that plaintiff perfected se rvice on defendant Rosalind McAllister. The Court also grants defendant Ray Lautenschlager's motion for reconsideration, finds that plaintiff properly served said defendant, and strikes defendants Ohio Family Rights and Ohio Family Rights Natio nal from the complaint as redundant. Finally, the Court orders that the parties comply with Rule 5 for service of future pleadings and motions and orders defendants Lautenschlager and McAllister to file an answer to the first amended complaint by 4/7/16. (Related Docs. 30 and 32 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------SUZANNE SHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OHIO FAMILY RIGHTS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 15-cv-1757

OPINION AND ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 30, 32]

-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On March 1, 2016, this Court issued its opinion on Defendants’ challenges to service.1
On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff Suzanne Shell moved for reconsideration of the March 1, 2016
opinion.2 On March 14, 2016, Defendant Ray Lautenschlager moved for reconsideration of the
March 1, 2016 opinion.3 For the following reasons, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration and finds that Plaintiff perfected service on Defendant McAllister. This Court
GRANTS Defendant Lautenschlager’s motion for reconsideration, finds that Plaintiff properly
served Defendant Lautenschlager, and STRIKES Defendants Ohio Family Rights and Ohio
Family Rights National from the complaint as redundant. This Court also ORDERS that the
parties comply with Rule 5 for service of future pleadings and motions and ORDERS that
Defendants Lautenschlager and McAllister file an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
by April 7, 2016.

1

Doc. 29.
Doc. 30.
3
Doc. 32. Plaintiff responds. Doc. 33.
2

Case No. 15-cv-1757
Gwin, J.
I. Discussion
Service on Defendant McAllister
In its March 1, 2016 opinion, this Court, finding that Plaintiff attempted service on
Defendant McAllister at her place of business, held that “[t]hough Defendant Lautenschlager
may be a person of ‘suitable age and discretion,’ the address at which Reverend Hoge served
Defendant Lautenschlager is not Defendant McAllister’s home or dwelling place.”4 With her
motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff Shell notes that the Cleveland address where she served
Defendants McAllister and Lautenschlager is actually McAllister’s home, not her business. With
no objection from Defendant McAllister, this Court finds that Plaintiff Shell properly served
Defendant McAllister under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2)(B).
Defendants Ohio Family Rights and Ohio Family Rights National
With his motion for reconsideration, Defendant Lautenschlager says that Defendants
Ohio Family Rights and Ohio Family Rights National are nothing more than webpages and
Facebook pages operated by Lautenschlager. 5 This Court finds that websites are not entities that
can sue or be sued, and therefore cannot grant relief to Plaintiff Shell.6 Furthermore, because a
named defendant operates these websites, any causes of action against the websites are
redundant. Therefore, this Court STRIKES Defendants Ohio Family Rights and Ohio Family
Rights National from Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(f)(1).

4

Doc. 29 at 4.
Plaintiff says that because these websites hold themselves out as organizations and make reference to a board of
directors, that this Court should treat them as legal entities. This argument loses. The websites’ use of these words is
insufficient to make them separate legal entities with the power to sue or be sued.
6
See Lavergne v. Busted in Acadiana, 2014 WL 949860, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 11, 2014) aff'd, 583 F. App’x 368
(5th Cir. 2014) cert. dismissed, 135 S. Ct. 1532, 191 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2015) (finding that a website “has no
independent legal existence or the capacity to be sued” under Louisiana law); Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC v. Weisser,
886 F. Supp. 2d 930, 942 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (same under Indiana law). The same principle holds under Ohio law. See
Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 589 N.E.2d 1306, 1309 (Ohio 1992) (“If a defendant in a lawsuit is not an actual or
legal entity, then any judgment rendered against that entity is void.”).
5

-2-

Case No. 15-cv-1757
Gwin, J.
Service on Defendant Lautenschlager
With his motion for reconsideration, Defendant Lautenschlager also says that Plaintiff
has not served him. However, the record shows that Plaintiff personally served Defendant
Lautenschlager with her first amended complaint—the operative complaint in this case—and
summons.7 This satisfies Plaintiff’s service requirement.8
As for the other documents listed in Defendant Lautenschlager’s motion for
reconsideration, all parties must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, including
serving motions and pleadings on the other parties.
Filing an Answer
This Court finds that Plaintiff Shell properly served Defendants McAllister and
Lautenschlager. Therefore, this Court ORDERS that these Defendants each file an answer to the
complaint by April 7, 2016 or risk an entry of default judgment against them. All other properly
served parties in this case must file an answer within the time limits set by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(a).
II. Conclusion
For the reasons above, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and
finds that Plaintiff perfected service on Defendant McAllister, GRANTS Defendant
Lautenschlager’s motion for reconsideration, finds that Plaintiff properly served Defendant
Lautenschlager, STRIKES Defendants Ohio Family Rights and Ohio Family Rights National
from the complaint, ORDERS that future pleadings be served on the remaining parties, and

Defendant Lautenschlager says that Plaintiff’s service was inadequate because it did not come with the original
complaint. This argument loses. A plaintiff needs to serve a copy of the operative complaint, not the original
complaint, along with the summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).
8
Id.
7

-3-

Case No. 15-cv-1757
Gwin, J.
ORDERS that Defendants Lautenschlager and McAllister file answers to Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint by April 7, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-