Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC

S.D. Ohio

Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC

DecidedJanuary 21, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-02952

StatusUnknown

This text of Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC (Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC) 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

Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JESSICA HINES, individually and on : behalf of all others similarly situated, : : Case No. 2:23-cv-2952 Plaintiff, : : Judge Algenon L. Marbley v. : : Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT : GROUP, LLC d/b/a Vanity, : : Defendant. :

ORDER

This matter is before this Court on Defendant National Entertainment Group, LLC d/b/a Vanity’s (“Vanity”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (“Motion to Stay”). (ECF No. 25). On August 7, 2024, this Court denied Vanity’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Or In the Alternative to Stay the Matter Pending Completion of Arbitration. (ECF No. 4). (ECF No. 23). Subsequently, Vanity filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 24). Vanity now asserts that, due to the notice of appeal, “procedings in this Court should be stayed.” (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff does not oppose. (ECF No. 34). The authority of a federal court to stay proceedings is well-established. See Ohio Env't Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977) (“[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.” (quoting Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); Hill v. Mitchell, 30 F.Supp.2d 997, 1000 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (“[T]he Court has the power to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the same or related issues in another forum.”). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 25), and this case is STAYED pending the appeal. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report with the Court once the Sixth Circuit resolves the appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: January 21, 2025

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

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

JESSICA HINES, individually and on : behalf of all others similarly situated, : : Case No. 2:23-cv-2952 Plaintiff, : : Judge Algenon L. Marbley v. : : Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT : GROUP, LLC d/b/a Vanity, : : Defendant. :

ORDER

This matter is before this Court on Defendant National Entertainment Group, LLC d/b/a Vanity’s (“Vanity”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (“Motion to Stay”). (ECF No. 25). On August 7, 2024, this Court denied Vanity’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Or In the Alternative to Stay the Matter Pending Completion of Arbitration. (ECF No. 4). (ECF No. 23). Subsequently, Vanity filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 24). Vanity now asserts that, due to the notice of appeal, “procedings in this Court should be stayed.” (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff does not oppose. (ECF No. 34). The authority of a federal court to stay proceedings is well-established. See Ohio Env't Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977) (“[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.” (quoting Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); Hill v. Mitchell, 30 F.Supp.2d 997, 1000 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (“[T]he Court has the power to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the same or related issues in another forum.”). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 25), and this case is STAYED pending the appeal. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report with the Court once the Sixth Circuit resolves the appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: January 21, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-national-entertainment-group-llc-ohsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack