Estes v. University Of Cincinnati

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 25, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-00465
StatusUnknown

This text of Estes v. University Of Cincinnati (Estes v. University Of Cincinnati) 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
Estes v. University Of Cincinnati, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

SHANEA K. ESTES, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:24-cv-00465-JPH : v. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER

These matters are before the Court on Defendant Jane Strasser’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 5) and Plaintiff Shanea K. Estes’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant University of Cincinnati Medical Center, LLC (“UCMC”). Doc. 8. On November 4, 2024, Defendant Jane Strasser filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. Doc. 5. Three weeks later, on November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Doc. 6. Defendant Jane Strasser has since responded by filing a second Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. Doc. 9. Accordingly, Defendant Jane Strasser’s first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. See Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021) (“The general rule is that filing an amended complaint moots pending motions to dismiss.”) Moreover, on November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant University of Cincinnati Medical Center, LLC in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Doc. 8. Plaintiff brought the motion “in good faith[,]” and “after consultation with opposing counsel[,|” agreed that UCMC is not “an essential or necessary party to the disposition of Plaintiffs claims.” Jd. at PageID 87. On a party’s motion or on its own, the Court “may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Finding Plaintiff's averments regarding the circumstances of her motion to constitute “just terms,” the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant UCMC as a party to this action. Doc. 8. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant University of Cincinnati Medical Center, LLC is dismissed as a party to this civil action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to refiling, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate UCMC from the docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. July 25, 2025 Boys ! Lesa ery P. ins United States District Judge

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

Related

Dawn Crawford v. John Tilley
15 F.4th 752 (Sixth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estes v. University Of Cincinnati, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estes-v-university-of-cincinnati-ohsd-2025.