Fontain v. Lane et al

Filing 39

ORDER - The Court ORDERS the parties to submit status reports on the pending state court proceedings, including the pending Ohio Supreme Court case, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/29/2022. (kh) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MARCUS FONTAIN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:19-cv-304
Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

ORDER

APRIL L. LANE, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Marcus Fontain filed this civil rights action on April 26, 2019, alleging that
defendants, including a county receiver, lawyers, and others, violated his federal constitutional
rights through their actions in connection with a state court lawsuit concerning his ownership
rights of the Dina Towers Condominium Building in Hamilton County, Ohio. (Doc. 1). On May
9, 2019, the undersigned recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order
be denied and that this Court should abstain exercising its jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims
against defendants pending the conclusion of the state court civil proceedings. (Doc. 7).
Thereafter, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 11). Defendants
Brian O’Connell, Harjinder Sandhu, Jasreen Sandhu, April Lane, Jeffrey Lane, and Zachary
Prendergast filed motions to dismiss in May 2019 (Docs. 8, 9) and plaintiff has filed six motions
(Docs. 12, 13, 16, 23, 24, 26), all of which remain pending in light of the Court’s abstention over
plaintiff’s claims pending the conclusion of state court proceedings.
In May 2020, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Status of the State Cases” asserting that the state
actions are “ongoing” either at the trial court level or on appeal. (Doc. 17). These cases include
H&R Cinci Properties, LLC, v. Marcus Fontain, Case Nos. A-1705644, C-190574, and Marcus
Fontain v. Harjinder Sandhu, Case Nos. A-1901296, C-2000011. (Id. at PAGEID 824). On
September 4, 2020 and March 18, 2021, the Court ordered the parties to submit status reports on

1

the pending state court proceedings. (Docs. 18, 25). The parties complied. (Docs. 19, 21, 22,
26, 27, 28). Plaintiff alleged that this matter was “ripe for trial on the merits and the Court
should set it on the trial calendar.” (Doc. 26 at PAGEID 1176). Defendants, however,
maintained that “the various lawsuits between the parties pending in state court currently remain
pending, either in the court of appeals or in the trial court.” (Doc. 27 at PAGEID 1265; see also
Doc. 28 at PAGEID 1271). Defendants stated that plaintiff had initiated a lawsuit in Warren
County, Ohio “directed to the same objective” following “the last status report to this Court.”
(Doc. 27 at PAGEID 1265).
On August 3, 2021, the Court again ordered the parties to submit status reports on the
pending state court proceedings. (Doc. 29). Plaintiff and defendants filed their respective
reports. (Docs. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34). Plaintiff alleged that this matter is “ripe for trial on the
merits” and the Court should “set the case on the trial calendar. . . .” (Doc. 32 at PAGEID 129899). Defendants argued that “the state court civil proceedings are effectively concluded” and the
“Receivership Action, underlying all of Plaintiff Marcus Fontain’s claims in the present case, has
been completely resolved.” (Doc. 30 at PAGEID 1284; see also Doc. 31). Defendants
contended that “the stay should now be lifted, and the [defendants’] pending Motion[s] to
Dismiss should be decided.” (Id.).
On September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a “judicial notice of intent to sue State Judge Terry
Nestor and settlement demand pursuant to Evidence Rule 201(b)(1)(2) and 201(c)(2).” (Doc.
35). Plaintiff attached a twenty-page letter, addressed to Hamilton County Court of Common
Pleas Judge Terry Nestor, to his filing. (Id. at PAGEID 1621-40). As best the Court can discern,
plaintiff appears to express his intent to “commence a federal lawsuit” against Judge Nestor,

2

“unless” Judge Nestor complies with various demands. (Id.). 1 Most recently, on February 9,
2022, plaintiff filed an amended “notice of defendant’s ongoing deprivation of plaintiff’s rights
in violation of Title 42 USC § 1983; and Due Process.” (Doc. 38).
In addition to the aforementioned state court proceedings, the Court notes there is
currently a pending Ohio Supreme Court case involving plaintiff and defendants 2: Marcus
Fontain v. Harjinder Sandhu, et al. and Westfield Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20220036. It appears that plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court based on the First
District Court of Appeals’ entry denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order
denying plaintiff’s application for a rehearing en banc in Marcus Fontain v. Harjinder Sandhu,
Case Nos. A-1901296, C-2000011. (Id., Notice of Appeal).
In light of the age of this lawsuit, the pending motions, the pending Ohio Supreme Court
case, and the Court’s desire to efficiently manage its docket, the Court ORDERS the parties to
submit status reports on the pending state court proceedings, including the pending Ohio
Supreme Court case, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

3/29/2022

Karen L. Litkovitz
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff requests Judge Nestor to do the following: “(1) enter an Order quashing your fraudulent February 13,
2019, Restraining Order, issued against my wife and me; (2) enter an Order quashing your illegal February 13, 2019,
Order Extending the Receivership, commensurate with the parties Settlement Agreement and the Agreed Entry of
Dismissal by Judge Steven E. Martin; (3) enter an Order vacating and setting aside your sham September 12, 2019,
Judgment Order deceitfully styled as a ‘Final Entry Terminating Receivership Enforcing the Settlement
Agreement and Assessing Costs’ from the dismissed H&R Cincy v. Fontaine, Case No. A1705644.” (Doc. 35 at
PAGEID 1621) (emphasis in original).
2
The Court notes that in addition to the named defendants in this matter, the Ohio Supreme Court matter also
involves a newly named defendant, Westfield Insurance Company. Marcus Fontain v. Harjinder Sandhu, et al. and
Westfield Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2022-0036.
1

3