Thompson et al v. City of Oakwood et al

Filing 24

ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF PRE-SALE INSPECTION ORDINANCE AND REQUEST TO DECLARE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS MOOT 23 . The Court construes the Notice 23 as a motion to vacat e the Preliminary Injunction 15 as moot. The Notice is therefore subject to the briefing schedule in S.D. Ohio Civ. R.7.2(a)(2), which states: Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed within twenty-one days after the date of service of the moti on. Failure to file a memorandum in opposition may result in the granting of any motion that would not result directly in entry of final judgment or an award of attorneys' fees. Any reply memorandum shall be filed within fourteen days after the date of service of the memorandum in opposition. No additional memoranda beyond those enumerated are permitted except upon leave of court for good cause shown. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7-8-2016. (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JASON THOMPSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF OAKWOOD, OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:16-cv-169
Judge Thomas M. Rose

______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S
NOTICE OF PRE-SALE INSPECTION ORDINANCE AND REQUEST TO
DECLARE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AS MOOT (DOC. 23)
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Notice of New Pre-Sale Inspection Ordinance and
Request to Declare Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Moot (“Notice”)
(Doc. 23) filed by Defendant City of Oakwood, Ohio (“Oakwood”). In the Notice, Oakwood
states that on July 5, 2016, Oakwood repealed the pre-sale inspection ordinance at issue in this
case and replaced it with a new ordinance (attached as Exhibit A to the Notice). Oakwood
argues that the new ordinance does not provide for the enforcement activities that the Court
enjoined in its Entry and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”) (Doc. 15). As a result, Oakwood requests that
the Court declare the Preliminary Injunction moot as of July 6, 2016.
The Court construes the Notice as a motion to vacate the Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
15) as moot. The Notice is therefore subject to the briefing schedule in S.D. Ohio Civ. R.
7.2(a)(2), which states:

Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed within twenty-one days after the
date of service of the motion. Failure to file a memorandum in opposition may
result in the granting of any motion that would not result directly in entry of final
judgment or an award of attorneys’ fees. Any reply memorandum shall be filed
within fourteen days after the date of service of the memorandum in opposition.
No additional memoranda beyond those enumerated are permitted except upon
leave of court for good cause shown.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, July 8, 2016.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2