Ardent Technologies Inc., et al. v. Advent Svcs LLC, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ARDENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 3:23-cv-137 : v. : : Judge Thomas M. Rose ADVENT SVCS LLC, et al., : : Defendants. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION (DOC. NO. 83) ______________________________________________________________________________

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Referral to Mediation (Doc. No. 83). In short, Defendants want this matter referred to a magistrate judge for a Court-conducted mediation and Plaintiffs do not. Plaintiffs submit that unless and until Defendants respond to their global settlement offer, no mediation will be productive. The Court is generally disinclined to force parties to the mediation table against their will. To be sure, “‘the [C]ourt cannot require any party to settle a case.’” Farm Credit Mid-Am., PCA v. Uncle Nearest, Inc., No 4:25-cv-38, 2025 WL 3125505, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 21, 2025) (quoting Lockhart v. Patel, 115 F.R.D. 44, 47 (E.D. Ky. 1987)). Therefore, in light of Plaintiffs’ opposition, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion for Referral to Mediation (Doc. No. 83). DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, July 10, 2026. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE