Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. v. State Of Ohio
Huber Heights Veterans Club, Inc. v. State Of Ohio
Trial Court Opinion
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., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Doc. No. 23)
The civil case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Doc. No. 23. 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. Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 14, 15, 16), and this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims based on res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. See Doc. No. 21.1 Now, Plaintiff seeks separate findings of fact and conclusions of law for each Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. Doc. No. 23. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3) states “[t]he court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion under Rule 12[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3). In Stephens v. National City Corporation, the Sixth Circuit noted, “A district court must state separate findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). But where, as here, the district
1 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). court rules on motions to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b), there is no such requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3).” Stephens v. Nat’l City Corp., No. 20-3746,
2021 WL 3027864, at *4 (6th Cir. June 14, 2021). Here, the Court dismissed the case after Defendants filed Rule 12(b) motions (Doc. Nos. 14, 15, 16), which means the Court is not required to state separate findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this case. See Doc. No. 21. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 24, 2024 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown