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 DEFENDANT 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)

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