Durham v. Niffenegger

S.D. Ohio

Durham v. Niffenegger

DecidedJanuary 31, 2024

Docket1:18-cv-00091

StatusUnknown

This text of Durham v. Niffenegger (Durham v. Niffenegger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durham v. Niffenegger, (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DAVID DURHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-91 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et al., ORDER Defendants. On December 6, 2023, the District Judge issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Clerk entered judgment in their favor. (Docs. 184, 185). Plaintiff has appealed these entries. (See Docs. 189, 190). This matter is before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187). The parties have filed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding, docketed as a response, stating their agreement to stay these motions pending the disposition of plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 191). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 785 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Consistent with this authority, the parties’ agreement, and the interest of judicial economy, defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187) are hereby STAYED pending the disposition of plaintiff's appeal. Within 30 days of the disposition of such appeal, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants’ motions, if warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DAVID DURHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-91 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et al., ORDER Defendants. On December 6, 2023, the District Judge issued an Opinion and Order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Clerk entered judgment in their favor. (Docs. 184, 185). Plaintiff has appealed these entries. (See Docs. 189, 190). This matter is before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187). The parties have filed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding, docketed as a response, stating their agreement to stay these motions pending the disposition of plaintiff’s appeal. (Doc. 191). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 785 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Consistent with this authority, the parties’ agreement, and the interest of judicial economy, defendants’ Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 186) and Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 187) are hereby STAYED pending the disposition of plaintiff's appeal. Within 30 days of the disposition of such appeal, plaintiffs shall respond to defendants’ motions, if warranted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Durham v. Niffenegger, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-niffenegger-ohsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack