American Academy of Implant Dentistry et al v. Kamdar et al
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion to Stay; Dft's to submit status report w/in 30 days from the date of this order; Dft's to notify the Court upon completion of the rule revision process. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 10/25/18. (sh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF IMPLANT
DENTISTRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action 2:18-cv-15
Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
v.
KAMDAR, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (ECF
No. 16), Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 18), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No.
19). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay. (ECF No.
16.)
I.
Plaintiffs, the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, Kevin J. O’Grady, D.D.S., and
Scott Sayre, D.D.S. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants, challenging
the constitutionality of two rules of the Ohio State Dental Board (“Board”), Ohio Administrative
Code Sections 4715-5-04 and 4715-13-05 (the “challenged rules”), which regulate Board
recognition of dental specialties and professional advertising of those specialties. (Compl., ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from
enforcing the challenged rules. (Id.)
On March 14, 2018, the parties jointly moved to stay all proceedings pending the Board’s
consideration of revisions to the challenged rules (“Joint Motion”). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 8.) In
their Joint Motion, the parties agreed that the anticipated revisions to the challenged rules may
render Plaintiffs’ claims moot or significantly affect the Court’s analysis of the merits of
Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 2-3.) The parties further agreed that a stay of the proceedings would
not cause hardship to Plaintiffs because the Board voted to suspend enforcement of the
challenged rules during the pendency of the rule revision process. (Id. at 3.) The Court promptly
granted the Joint Motion and entered a stay of this case “through September 14, 2018, and if
Defendants notify the Court in writing on or before September 14, 2018, that the Board has voted
to revise the rules at issue, the stay will be extended until the rule revisions become effective.”
(Mar. 15, 2018 Order 2, ECF No. 9.)
On September 10, 2018, Defendants filed a status report, informing the Court that the
Board voted to revise the challenged rules and to submit the proposed amendments to Ohio’s
Common Sense Initiative Office (“CSI”) for review pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 107.56.
(Defs.’ Status Report 1, ECF No. 17.) Defendants explained that, if CSI approves, the Board
may proceed with the public rulemaking process pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 119,
which includes further review by the Board, a public comment period, review by the Joint
Commission on Agency Rule Review, and a second review by CSI to determine the business
impact of the proposed rule. (Id. at 1-2.) This process will likely take several months and could
potentially result in additional changes or no changes to the challenged rules. (Id.) Defendants
assert that the stay should remain in place until the rule revisions become effective. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiffs seek to lift the stay, contending that the Board’s proposed rule revisions will not
resolve or narrow their constitutional concerns. (Pl.’s Mot. to Lift Stay, ECF No. 16.) They
assert that they initially agreed to a stay because they believed that the Board’s proposed rule
2
revisions would accommodate or take steps toward accommodating their constitutional concerns.
(Id. at 3.) They no longer believe that to be true. Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer harm from
the continued delay of this matter because the rulemaking process will not resolve their claims.
(Id. at p. 4.)
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay, asserting that the stay should remain in
place until the revisions to the challenged rules become effective. (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp. 2, ECF
No. 18.) Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ contention that the proposed changes will not
modify the substance of the challenged rules and reassert that the revisions may render Plaintiffs’
claims moot or affect the Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 3 and n. 1.) They also
note that the challenged rules may undergo additional revisions during rulemaking process. (Id.
3.) Defendants assert that the parties “reasonably agreed not to expend resources litigating this
case until the final language in the rules is established” and that Plaintiffs were aware of the
lengthy rulemaking process when they initially agreed to a stay. (Id. at 3-4.) Finally, Defendants
contend that neither Plaintiffs nor the public will suffer harm from the delay because the Board
agreed to suspend enforcement of the challenged rules until any changes become effective. (Id.,
at p. 4.)
II.
A district court possesses the inherent power to stay proceedings based on its authority to
“control the disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel and for litigants . . . .” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 626-27 (6th Cir.
2014) (quoting Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393,
396 (6th Cir. 1977) (holding that “the District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as
3
an incident to its power to control its own docket.”)). In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts
commonly consider factors such as: (1) the need for a stay; (2) the stage of litigation; (3) whether
the non-moving party will be unduly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged; (4) whether a stay
will simplify the issues; and (5) whether burden of litigation will be reduced for both the parties
and the court. Grice Eng’g, Inc. v. JG Innovs., Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010)
(citations omitted). See also Ferrell v. Wyeth–Ayerst Labs., Inc., No. 1:01–cv–447, 2005 WL
2709623, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2005) (“There is no precise test in this Circuit for when a stay
is appropriate. However, district courts often consider the following factors: the need for a stay,
the balance of potential hardship to the parties and the public, and the promotion of judicial
economy.”). The movant bears the burden of showing both a need for delay and that “neither the
other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.” Ohio Envtl. Council, 565
F.2d at 396.
III.
Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that a stay is warranted pending
completion of the rule revision process.
The Court is persuaded that a stay is necessary and that it may directly reduce the burden
of this litigation on both the parties and the Court. Although the parties disagree regarding the
impact of the Board’s proposed amendments to the challenged rules, they agree that the rules
will likely be revised in some manner. Significant modifications of the rules will impact the
Court’s assessment of the merits and could even render Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges
moot. Such modifications could also result in amendments to pleadings, duplicate discovery
efforts, and revised dispositive motions. Under such circumstances, a stay is prudent, as it will
4
preserve the parties’ resources, promote judicial economy, and avoid potentially needless
consideration of the constitutionality of the challenged rules. Cf. R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v.
Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500–01 (1941) (explaining that “[f]ew public interests have a higher
claim upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with
state policies); Spector Motor Serv. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944) (“If there is one
doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that
we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is
unavoidable.”).
The Court is also not persuaded that Plaintiffs, or the public, will suffer undue harm from
a continuance of the stay. The Court recognizes that the State’s rule revision process is lengthy
and that the stay could be in place for several months. Plaintiffs and the public will suffer
minimal harm from such delay, however, because the Board voted to suspend enforcement of the
challenged rules until the revisions are effective. Accordingly, the relevant factors weigh in
favor of maintaining the stay during the rule revision process.
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (ECF
No. 16.) This case is hereby STAYED until the revisions to the challenged rules become
effective. Defendants are ORDERED to submit a status report to this Court thirty (30) days
from the date of this Opinion and Order, and every thirty (30) days thereafter until the stay is
lifted. Defendants are further ORDERED to notify the Court upon the completion of the rule
revision process.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?