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^^
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?