Wallace v. Montgomery County Ohio/Montgomery County Board of Commissioners et al

Filing 43

ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 28 ) BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT JERRID CAMPBELL'S REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE 2744.07(C)ORDER - The Court orders the parties appear at a hearing on September 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment and, specifically, the duty to defend under Section 2744.07. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8/27/18. (ep)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DARYL WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 3:17-cv-183 Judge Thomas M. Rose ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 28) BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT JERRID CAMPBELL’S REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE 2744.07(C) This case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) filed by the Montgomery County Defendants. In response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Jerrid Campbell requested a hearing regarding Montgomery County’s duty to defend under Ohio Rev. Code 2744.07. The Montgomery County Defendants concur with Campbell that “the only way to interpret the plain language of Ohio Revised Code 2744.07(C) is that an oral hearing must occur concerning a duty to defend, if requested by either the political subdivision or the employee.” (Doc. 37 at 2.) The Court therefore orders the parties appear at a hearing on September 25, 2018 at 1:30 PM regarding the Motion for Summary Judgment and, specifically, the duty to defend under Section 2744.07. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, August 27, 2018. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?