Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC

S.D. Ohio

Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided April 8, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-00799·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI AMY JACKSON, : Case No. 1:20-cv-799 Plaintiff, | Judge Matthew W. McFarland v. RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court are four motions: (1) a motion to withdraw, from Attorney Robert Thompson, seeking to withdraw from representation of Defendants (Doc. 28); (2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 29), seeking to file her motion to enforce settlement under seal; (3) Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, enforce the settlement agreement, and set a hearing (Doc. 30); and (4) Defendants’ motion for extension of time to respond to the previous motion to reopen the case, enforce the settlement, and set a hearing (Doc. 31). The Court rules as follows. Motion to withdraw. Because the reasons stated in his motion constitute good cause, see S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c), Mr. Thompson's motion to withdraw from the representation of Defendants (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Motion for leave to file under seal. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her enforcement motion under seal does not apply the required analysis under Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross

Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016). For that reason, the motion for leave (Doc. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile applying the proper Shane Group analysis. Motion to reopen case, etc., and related motion for extension. Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and enforce the settlement advances substantive legal arguments. (Doc. 30.) A response is due April 20, 2022. Because they will be seeking new counsel, Defendants move for a 30-day extension of time to that response deadline. (Doc. 31.) For good cause, the motion for extension (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and enforce settlement (Doc. 30) is due MAY 20, 2022. Defendants are advised to retain new counsel post-haste. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ¢

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

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 WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI AMY JACKSON, : Case No. 1:20-cv-799 Plaintiff, | Judge Matthew W. McFarland v. RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court are four motions: (1) a motion to withdraw, from Attorney Robert Thompson, seeking to withdraw from representation of Defendants (Doc. 28); (2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 29), seeking to file her motion to enforce settlement under seal; (3) Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, enforce the settlement agreement, and set a hearing (Doc. 30); and (4) Defendants’ motion for extension of time to respond to the previous motion to reopen the case, enforce the settlement, and set a hearing (Doc. 31). The Court rules as follows. Motion to withdraw. Because the reasons stated in his motion constitute good cause, see S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4(c), Mr. Thompson's motion to withdraw from the representation of Defendants (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Motion for leave to file under seal. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her enforcement motion under seal does not apply the required analysis under Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross

Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016). For that reason, the motion for leave (Doc. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile applying the proper Shane Group analysis. Motion to reopen case, etc., and related motion for extension. Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and enforce the settlement advances substantive legal arguments. (Doc. 30.) A response is due April 20, 2022. Because they will be seeking new counsel, Defendants move for a 30-day extension of time to that response deadline. (Doc. 31.) For good cause, the motion for extension (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and enforce settlement (Doc. 30) is due MAY 20, 2022. Defendants are advised to retain new counsel post-haste. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ¢

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC (Jackson v. Reliance Construction Services LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related