Dispasquale v. Hawkins et al

Filing 58

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A STAY (DOC. 51 ) AND STAYING DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE PENDING A DECISION BY THE OHIO SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS; (2) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTICE ADVISING OF SUCH DECISION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ITS ENTRY; (3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO MEET, CONFER AND FILE AN AMENDED RULE 26(f) REPORT WITHIN 21 DAYS FOLLOWING THE FILING OF PLAINTIFFS NOTICE; AND (4) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A WRITTEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO CLARIFY THE COURTS ORDER ON DEFENDANTS RULE 12(c) MOTIONS WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER granting 51 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/6/17. (pb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CHARLES DIPASQUALE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:16-cv-219

vs.
DETECTIVE JAMES HAWKINS, et al.,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A STAY (DOC.
51) AND STAYING DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE PENDING A DECISION BY THE
OHIO SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS; (2) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE A NOTICE ADVISING OF SUCH DECISION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF ITS ENTRY;
(3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO MEET, CONFER AND FILE AN AMENDED RULE
26(f) REPORT WITHIN 21 DAYS FOLLOWING THE FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE; AND (4) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A WRITTEN MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO CLARIFY THE COURT’S ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(c) MOTIONS WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF
THIS ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to stay this case pending
resolution of a companion case currently pending in the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals.
Doc. 51. Defendant Hawkins opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 53. Defendants Herres and
Proctor do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Court heard extensive argument from counsel for
all parties on Plaintiff’s motion by telephone on October 5, 2017. Attorneys Larry Greger,
Katherine Epling, Anne Frayne, and Ronald Ruppert participated. Plaintiff’s motion for stay is
now ripe for decision.1

In Plaintiff’s recently-filed motion to stay (doc. 51 at PageID 364), reference is made to
“Magistrate,” instead of “Magistrate Judge.” All counsel are reminded that the proper and respectful term
is “Magistrate Judge.” See 28 U.S.C § 636(b); see also Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp.3d 650, 653 n.1
(M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2015) (stating that “[t]he title magistrate no longer exists in the U.S. Courts, having
been changed from “magistrate” to “magistrate judge” in 1990). Accordingly, all future filings shall refer
to “Magistrate Judge” or “Your Honor.”
1

The undersigned ORDERS as follows:
(1)

For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay (doc. 51) is
GRANTED and discovery in this case is hereby STAYED pending a
decision by the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals;

(2)

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a notice with the Court within 7 days from
the entry of a decision by the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals
advising the Court and counsel of such that such decision has been
entered;

(3)

All parties are ORDERED to meet and confer within 21 days following
the filing of Plaintiff’s notice and to file an amended Rule 26(f) report
with the Court;

(4)

In light of Plaintiff’s oral motion to reconsider and/or clarify the Decision
regarding Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motions, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file
a formal written motion in this regard setting forth argument and citation
to authority within 14 days from the entry of this Order; Defendants may
file memoranda in opposition within 14 days from the filing of Plaintiff’s
motion; and Plaintiff may file a reply within 7 days from the filing of
Defendants’ memoranda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

October 6, 2017

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge