VERHOVEC v. CITY OF TROTWOOD, 3:14-cv-363. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150224e33
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This case is before the Court on Motion (Doc. No. 35) of Defendants City of Trotwood and Michael J. Lucking and Putative Counterclaim Defendants Stephen McHugh and Amelia Blankenship to Dismiss the Counterclaim of William E. Walker, Jr. (Doc. No. 31). The Motion was filed and served December 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 35, PageID 307). Under S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, Walker's memorandum in opposition was due to be filed not later than January
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge. This case is before the Court on Motion (Doc. No. 35) of Defendants City of Trotwood and Michael J. Lucking and Putative Counterclaim Defendants Stephen McHugh and Amelia Blankenship to Dismiss the Counterclaim of William E. Walker, Jr. (Doc. No. 31). The Motion was filed and served December 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 35, PageID 307). Under S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, Walker's memorandum in opposition was due to be filed not later than January 1..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This case is before the Court on Motion (Doc. No. 35) of Defendants City of Trotwood and Michael J. Lucking and Putative Counterclaim Defendants Stephen McHugh and Amelia Blankenship to Dismiss the Counterclaim of William E. Walker, Jr. (Doc. No. 31). The Motion was filed and served December 19, 2014 (Doc. No. 35, PageID 307). Under S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, Walker's memorandum in opposition was due to be filed not later than January 12, 2015, but he has neither filed such a memorandum nor sought or received any extension of time to do so.
Walker's Counterclaim should be dismissed as to Putative Counterclaim Defendants Stephen McHugh and Amelia Blankenship for the reason they have given, to wit, that they are not opposing parties as to whom a counterclaim can be filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13.
Because Walker's Counterclaim as to all four counterclaim Defendants is a permissive counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, Walker must show an independent basis of federal jurisdiction. However, the claims he pleads are all Ohio common law claims, not claims arising under federal law.
Therefore it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. February 23, 2015.
Source: Leagle
