Hutchison v. Parent et al

Filing 330

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 316 Motion for Indicative Ruling filed by First Federal Bank of the Midwest. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/27/2018. (SG,D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Scott Hutchison,

Case No. 3:12-cv-320
Plaintiff

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

John R. Parent, et al.,
Defendants
This matter is before me on the Proposed Intervenor, First Federal Bank of the Midwest’s
motion for an indicative ruling on its motion to intervene. First Federal Bank seeks intervention for
the purpose of asserting its Creditor’s Bill reflective of a January 2009 judgment rendered by the
Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County. There is no opposition to this motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 addresses an indicative ruling as follows:
(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court
lacks authority to grant, because of an appeal that has been docketed and is
pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for
that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

In this matter, this Court has recently issued a ruling on the Defendant’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law on the issue of punitive damages. (Doc. Nos. 328 and 329). As that
matter is back with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the instant motion does not fall into the

category listed in Fed. R. App. P. (a)(4)(A) (i-vi), this Court is without jurisdiction to issue a ruling at
this juncture.
There is no opposition to the movant’s motion. In considering the circumstances of this
litigation, I grant the movant’s motion for an indicative ruling. (Doc. No. 316). Assuming the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit were to remand on this issue, that the Proposed Intervenor’s
motion to intervene would be well taken.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

2