McGirr et al v. Rehme et al

Filing 153

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Pending the Decision of the Sixth Circuit 101 Motion to Transfer all Sequestered Funds to the IRS; 115 Motion for Summary Judgment and 122 Motion to Strike Expert Affidavit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs ar e to file a Supplemental Brief by 9/1/2017, explaining the basis of the court's jurisdiction to hear the pending motions [99, 116, 126 and 151]; Defendants' Response to be filed by 9/11/2017. Signed by Judge Robert H. Cleland on 8/24/2017. (lgw)

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

CONNIE MCGIRR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 164-464

THOMAS F. REHME, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WTHOUT PREJUDICE CHESLEY’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF
FUNDS; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The court held a telephonic status conference on August 23, 2017, to discuss the
degree to which pending motions have been mooted by recent case developments or the
court has been removed of jurisdiction to consider them following the notice of appeal to
the Sixth Circuit.
As discussed during the conference and agreed by counsel, the court will deny
without prejudice Chesley’s Motion for Transfer of All Sequestered Funds to the Internal
Revenue Service (Dkt. #101) in light of the divestiture of this court’s jurisdiction to
consider the motion by the pending appeal before the Sixth Circuit.
Counsel agreed that the pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #115) was
partially mooted by the agreed order of substitution, that the court lacked jurisdiction to
consider the statute of limitations argument raised in the motion, but believed that the
court could rule on the Kentucky Probate standing arguments. As it would amount to little
more than an artificial exercise to address this relatively ancillary issue while the appeal
is pending, the court in its discretion will deny without prejudice the motion for summary

judgment as well as the related Motion to Strike Expert Affidavit (Dkt. #122).
Plaintiffs expressed a view that the court retains jurisdiction to hear their pending
motions (Dkts. ##99, 116, 126, 151), and the court now directs Plaintiffs to file a
supplemental brief on or before Friday, September 1, 2017, explaining the basis for the
court’s continued jurisdiction over those issues while the appeal remains pending.
Defendants are directed to file their response, if any, on or before Monday, September
11, 2017.
IT IS ORDERED that Chesley’s Motion for Transfer of All Sequestered Funds to
the Internal Revenue Service (Dkt. #101) is DENIED without prejudice pending the
decision of the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. #115) is DENIED without prejudice pending the decision of the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Expert Affidavit (Dkt.
#122) is DENIED without prejudice pending the decision of the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief on or before
Friday, September 1, 2017, explaining the basis for the court’s jurisdiction to hear their
pending motions (Dkts. ##99, 116, 126, 151).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are directed to file their response, if
any, on or before Monday, September 11, 2017.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:

August 24, 2017

S:\CLELAND\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16­464.MCGIRR.DENYINGMOTIONSANDSETTINGBRIEFINGSCHEDULE.BSS.DOCX

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, August 24, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\CLELAND\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16­464.MCGIRR.DENYINGMOTIONSANDSETTINGBRIEFINGSCHEDULE.BSS.DOCX

3