Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. v. State Of Ohio et al

Filing 27

ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 24 ); AND (2) RENEWING THE COURTS PREVIOUS TERMINATION OF THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/24/24. (pb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
HUBER HEIGHTS VETERANS
CLUB, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:23-cv-389

vs.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND TO ALTER
AND AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 24); AND (2) RENEWING THE COURT’S
PREVIOUS TERMINATION OF THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET
This is civil case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and/or to alter
and amend judgment (Doc. No. 24). Defendant State of Ohio filed a memorandum in opposition
(Doc. No. 25), to which Plaintiff did not reply. Thus, this motion is ripe for review.
In a previous order, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants based on res
judicata and/or collateral estoppel. See Doc. No. 21. 1 Now, Plaintiff seeks a new trial and/or an
alteration and amendment of the Court’s dismissal under Fed R. Civ. P. 59 and 52(b). Doc. No.
24.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 allows the Court to grant a new trial on some or all legal issues after
either a jury or nonjury trial. The Rule also permits parties to petition the Court to alter or amend
a judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 52(b) allows the Court to amend its findings, make
additional findings, or amend a judgment upon motion of a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b).

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed this Court’s dismissal of another Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. case based
on res judicata. See Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. v. Bowman, et al., No. 24-3342, Doc. No. 19 (6th Cir. Oct.
15, 2024).
1

The Court sees no reason to alter or amend its findings or judgment. In its motion, Plaintiff
points to no new evidence that would mandate this Court to alter its findings or render a new
decision. See generally Doc. No. 24. Nor will the Court grant Plaintiff a new trial; this matter did
not warrant a trial in the first place. Plaintiff’s motion merely points to the same conclusory
allegations—which have already been fully litigated—as its initial complaint. See generally id.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion here must be denied for the precise reasons the case was dismissed:
this matter is barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. See Doc. No. 21.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and to alter and amend judgment (Doc. No.
24) is DENIED. This case remains TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 24, 2024

s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge

2