Lucas v. Monitronics International, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER that the stay in this matter is Lifted and this case is reinstated on the Court's active docket. Plaintiff's 34 motion to access the CM/ECF filing system is Granted. Plaintiff's 34 motion to consolidate with related case is Denied. Plaintiff's 35 motion to withdraw his motion to remand is Granted. The Clerk is Directed to terminate this motion (Doc. 20) from the docket. Plaintiff is Ordered to file a status report on the remaining claims in this case within (30) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/27/2020. (art)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

VINCENT LUCAS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-374
Cole, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court following the conditional remand order issued by the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) (Doc. 33). This matter is also
before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to consolidate with related case/renewed motion to permit
plaintiff to use the Court’s CM/ECF filing system (Doc. 34) and plaintiff’s motion to withdraw
his motion to remand to state court (Doc. 35).
I. Conditional Remand Order
On June 19, 2017, this Court granted Monitronics’ motion to stay all proceedings in this
Court pending the JPML’s decision on whether to transfer and consolidate plaintiff’s case with
similar cases alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violations against
Monitronics in the Northern District of West Virginia. (Doc. 15). On October 16, 2017, the
JPML issued a transfer order consolidating plaintiff’s case with similar cases in the Northern
District of West Virginia. (Doc. 31).
Thereafter, this matter remained stayed in this Court. On September 24, 2019, the JPML
issued a conditional remand order remanding this case back to this Court. (Doc. 33). In light of
the JPML’s conditional remand order, the stay in this matter is LIFTED. This case is reinstated

on the Court’s active docket. 1
II. Motion to Consolidate/Motion for Access to Electronic Filing System (Doc. 34)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), plaintiff moves to consolidate this case with another
one of his cases in this Court—Lucas v. Gotra, No. 1:18-cv-664. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff alleges
that both lawsuits contain common questions of law or fact, both of which include violations of
the TCPA and Ohio telemarketing law by defendant Defend America, LLC, which plaintiff
states is the sole remaining defendant in this case. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff further moves the Court
for permission to access the CM/ECF electronic filing system. (Id. at 3).
In Lucas v. Gotra, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation in
July 2019 recommending that plaintiff’s case against all defendants be dismissed with prejudice.
(Case No. 1:18-cv-664, Doc. 40). With respect to plaintiff’s claims against Defend America,
LLC, Judge Bowman recommended that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied and
plaintiff’s claims be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. (Id. at 13). Judge Bowman
ruled that plaintiff’s inclusion of identical claims against Defend America, LLC, in the
multidistrict litigation case bars relitigation of plaintiff’s identical claims under the doctrine of
claim preclusion. (Id.). Judge Bowman cited the MDL’s June 26, 2019 Order and Suggestion of
Remand, which noted that plaintiff’s case was settled and resolved either prior to or in
mediation. (Id. at 11-12) (citing MDL Order and Suggestion of Remand, Lucas v. Monitronics,
No. 5:17-cv-00157 (Doc. 191). Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion
for default judgment, which clarified that he did not reach a settlement with Defend America,

1

Plaintiff states that the only remaining defendant in this case is Defend America, LLC. (Doc. 34 at 2). Plaintiff’s
claims against defendants Monitronics and Alliance Security were voluntarily dismissed during the multidistrict
litigation proceeding. (Doc. 33-2, 33-3). Moreover, plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed claims against defendants
Comet Media, Inc., Jessica Merrick, Rick Merrick, Tyler Coon, John Doe Companies, and Lucky 7, Inc. PH. (Docs.
14, 19, 36).

2

LLC, contrary to the MDL Court’s June 26, 2019 Order and Suggestion of Remand. (Case No.
1:18-cv-664, Doc. 41). In light of this motion, Judge Bowman issued a supplemental Report and
Recommendation, which still recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s entire case, including his
claims against Defend America, LLC. (Id. at Doc. 42 at 7-9).
Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this case with Case No. 1:18-cv-664 is denied in view of
Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation and Supplemental Report and
Recommendation, both of which recommend dismissal of plaintiff’s case. It would be futile for
this case to be consolidated with a case that is recommended for dismissal. However, the Court
will grant the portion of plaintiff’s motion that requests permission to use the Court’s CM/ECF
filing system. Documents filed electronically shall conform substantially to the requirements of
the Local Rules and to the format for the ECF system set out in the most current editions of the
ECF Policies and Procedures Manual issued by the Clerk. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1(c).
Plaintiff must abide by the Court’s ECF policies and procedures, the Local and Federal Civil
Rules, and the requirements of the registration form attached to his motion. By registering,
plaintiff consents to receiving notice of filings pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
via the Court’s electronic filing system. Permission to file electronically may be revoked at any
time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED to the extent he requests permission to
access the CM/ECF filing system and DENIED to the extent he requests to consolidate this case
with Case No. 1:18-cv-664.
III. Motion to Withdraw Remand to State Court (Doc. 35)
Plaintiff moves to withdraw his motion to remand to state court, which was filed before
this case was transferred to the Northern District of West Virginia as a part of multidistrict
litigation. (Doc. 35). For good cause shown, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is

3

directed to terminate plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 20).
IV. Conclusion
It is ORDERED that:
1. The stay in this matter is LIFTED and this case is reinstated on the Court’s active
docket.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to access the CM/ECF filing system (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate with related case (Doc. 34) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his motion to remand (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. The Clerk
is DIRECTED to terminate this motion (Doc. 20) from the docket.
5. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report on the remaining claims in this case
within thirty (30) days.

Date:

April 27, 2020
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

4