STATE OF OHIO ex rel Janell Smith v. City of Huber Heights Ohio et al

Filing 15

ENTRY SETTING SEQUENCING FOR THIS COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF AND DECISION ON PENDING MOTIONS: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. # 3 ), BEING AT ISSUE, IS TO BE RESOLVED FIRST BY THE COURT, FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF DEFEN DANT CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. # 2 ), SHOULD PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND BE OVERRULED; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING DECISION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND (DOC . # 3 ) IS SUSTAINED; IN SHORT, THE MOTION TO REMAND WILL BE DEALT WITH FIRST. DEPENDENT UPON THE COURT'S DECISION ON SAID MOTION, A FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE WILL BE SET, IF NECESSARY, ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. # 2 ). THE PENDING CAUSE IS STAYED, PURSUANT TO THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS (DOC. # 4 ), PENDING A DECISION ON THE ABOVE TWO REFERENCED MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 7/29/22. (pb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JANELL SMITH, et al. Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:22cvl64 JUDGE WALTER H. RICE vs. THE CITY OFHUBERHEIGHTS, OHIO, et al., Defendants. ENTRY SETTING SEQUENCING FOR THIS COURT'S CONSIDERATION OFAND DECISIONON PENDINGMOTIONS:PLAINTIFFS'MOTIONTO REMAND (DOC. #3), BEINGAT ISSUE, IS TO BE RESOLVEDFIRSTBY THE COURT, FOLLOWEDBY THIS COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTCITY OF HUBERHEIGHTSMOTIONTO DISMISS(DOC. #2), SHOULD PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND BE OVERRULED; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISSPENDINGDECISIONONPLAINTIFFS'MOTIONTO REMAND (DOC. #3) IS SUSTAINED; IN SHORT, THE MOTION TO REMAND WILL BE DEALT WITH FIRST. DEPENDENT UPON THE COURT'S DECISION ON SAID MOTION, A FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE WILL BE SET, IF NECESSARY, ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS(DOC. #2). THE PENDINGCAUSE IS STAYED, PURSUANT TO THE MOTION OF THE PLAINTFFS (DOC. #4), PENDING A DECISION ON THE ABOVE TWO REFERENCED MOTIONS Based upon a review of all pending motions in the captioned cause, the following is the Court's opinion on the sequencing of briefing and decisions upon said motions: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. #3), being at issue, is to be resolved first by the Court, followedby this Court's considerationofDefendant, City ofHuberHeights, Motionto Dismiss (Doc. #2), shouldPlaintiffs' Motion to Remandbe overruled. Plaintiffs' Motionto Stay Briefing onDefendants' Motion to Dismisspending decision onPlaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. #3) is SUSTAINED. In short, the Motion to Remandwill bedealt withfirst. Dependent uponthe Court's decision on saidmotion, a further briefing schedule will be set, ifnecessary, on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #2). The pending cause is STAYED, pursuant to the Motion ofthe Plaintiffs (Doc. #4), pending a decision onthe above two referenced motions Lf<i^- r'i ~s>^^ July 29, 2022 Copies to: Counsel of record WALTERH. RICE UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE

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?