McGirr et al v. Rehme et al

Filing 166

ORDER DIRECTING Defendants to file a Response as to 165 Notice of Agreed Order Appointing Receiver and the 162 Motion to Intervene, Motion to Appoint Receiver filed by Eric W Goering. Response due by 1/10/2018 . Signed by Judge Robert H. Cleland on 12/26/17. (lgw)

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

CONNIE MCGIRR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-464

THOMAS F. REHME, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE
On April 21, 2017, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
and ordered Defendants to refrain from assigning, distributing, disbursing, transferring,
or taking any action on any assets beyond basic expenses. (Dkt. # 113.) Defendants
appealed this order arguing that the court’s order amounts to an improper exercise of
jurisdiction over the assignee currently managing many of the Defendants’ assets
pursuant to a proceeding in Ohio Probate Court. This appeal is currently pending in the
Sixth Circuit. In the meantime, the Ohio Probate proceeding, an assignment for the
benefit of creditors (ABC), was stayed through a peremptory writ issued by the Ohio
Supreme Court and was subsequently dismissed.
There are six pending motions on the court’s docket: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 99), (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of a
Receiver (Dkt # 116), (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Dkt. #
126), (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 151), (5) Trustees’ Motions for
Admission Pro Hac Vice (Dkt. # 154, 155), (6) Assignee Eric Goering’s Motion to

Intervene and for the Appointment of a Receiver (Dkt. # 162). Additionally, the proposed
intervener and Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Agreed Order Appointing Receiver (Dkt. # 165).
The time allotted for a response pursuant to the Eastern District of Michigan’s Local
Rules as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has lapsed and Defendants have
not responded to the Assignee’s Motion to Intervene and for Appointment of Receiver
(Dkt. # 162). Nor have Defendants filed a response to the Notice of Agreed Order
Appointing a Receiver. (Dkt. # 165). Defendants’ positions may be similar the positions
articulated in their responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint a Receiver (Dkt. #120, 121)
or to their supplemental briefing pending appeal (Dkt. #158, 159), but given the
changing landscape of the case, the court will not presume so without indication from
Defendants. Instead, the court will direct Defendants to respond.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Assignee Eric
Goering’s Motion to Intervene and for the Appointment of a Receiver (Dkt. # 162) and to
the Notice of Agreed Order Appointing Receiver (Dkt. # 165) by January 10, 2018.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:

December 26, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 26, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
C:\USERS\WAGNER\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\NOTES887379\16­464.MCGIRR.DIRECTRESPONSE.AJU.DOCX

2