Cotterman v. City Of Cincinnati et al

Filing 130

ORDER denying 127 MOTION Seek Declaration Under Rule 61.2 for Appellate Court re 124 Judgment, 123 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Plaintiff's Motion That This Court Specifically Address Issues of State Law Causes of Action and of Privacy Not addressed In Original Opinion and Order (Doc 123). Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 9/16/2022. (eh)

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-WOB-KLL Doc #: 130 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2352

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-608 (WOB)
JASON COTTERMAN
VS.

PLAINTIFF
ORDER

CITY OF CINCINNATI,
ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion that
this Court Specifically Address Issues of State Law Causes of
Action and of Privacy Not Addressed in Original Opinion and Order,”
brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1. (Doc. 127). Defendant
DeBlauw filed a response in opposition to this motion. (Doc. 129).
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and concludes that
it should be denied.
Fed. R. 62.1 is a mechanism for a federal trial court to make
an “indicative” ruling on a pending motion for relief where the
district court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to rule due to a
pending appeal in the case. See generally 12 James Wm. Moore et
al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 62.1.02, 62.1.10 (3d ed. 1997 &
Supp. 2022). The most common example is when a party files a postjudgment motion, typically a Rule 60(b) motion, when an appeal is
already pending. Id.

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-WOB-KLL Doc #: 130 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2353

“Rule 62.1 does not provide for relief itself; rather it
provides the Court with authority to entertain a motion for relief,
including for example, a Rule 60(b) motion.” Hickman v. Moore,
Nos. 3:09-CV-69, 3:09-CV-102, 2011 WL 4860040, at *2 (E.D. Tenn.
Oct. 13, 2011). See also Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 310
F.R.D. 208, 210 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).
Here, there are no post-judgment motions pending which the
Court is precluded from ruling on due to plaintiff’s appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Doc. 125).
“Absent an underlying, predicate motion, there is no basis for
relief under Rule 62.1.” Medgraph, 310 F.R.D. at 210.

Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the Court being
advised,
IT

IS

ORDERED

that

plaintiff’s

“Motion

that

this

Court

Specifically Address Issues of State Law Causes of Action and of
Privacy Not Addressed in Original Opinion and Order” (Doc. 127)
be, and is hereby, DENIED.
This 16th day of September 2022.