Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees

S.D. Ohio

Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees

DecidedMarch 1, 2023

Docket1:20-cv-00842

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees (Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees) 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

Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees, (S.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI MOLLIE JOHNSON, i Case No. 1:20cv842 Plaintiff, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. : ROSS TOWNSHIP, ROSS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : TRUSTEES, ROSS TOWNSHIP : POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. :

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 14)

Before the Court is a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants Ross Township, Ross Township Board of Trustees, Ross Township Police Department, Burton Roberts, Robert Bass, and Patrick Carr (Doc. 14). Also pending is a motion for summary judgment filed by the same defendants (Doc. 43). Plaintiff brings nine statutory and common law claims related to her termination from a former employment as a detective with the Ross Township Police Department. The motion for partial judgment on the pleadings targets all of the causes of action. Plaintiff disputes all of Defendants’ arguments, with one exception: She withdraws her Title VII claims against Defendants Roberts, Bass, and Carr. (Response, Doc. 17, Pg. ID 138.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion for partial judgment on the

pleadings and dismisses the Title VII claims against Defendants Roberts, Bass, and Carr in their individual capacities. Hobbs v. Lucas Cnty. Sheriff's Off, 537 F. Supp. 3d 962, 965 (N.D. Ohio 2021). As for the remaining arguments: Upon review, the motion for summary judgment also addresses all of Plaintiff's causes of actions, in substantially the same but even more substantive fashion than the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It promotes judicial economy here to address these claims in the context of a full record—that is, on the motion for summary judgment. Having considered the papers filed relating to the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. See Williamson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 417CV00217ALMCAN, 2017 WL 4573694, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-217, 2017 WL 4552555 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2017). The Court will address the motion for summary judgment when it becomes ripe. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wis 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 MOLLIE JOHNSON, i Case No. 1:20cv842 Plaintiff, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. : ROSS TOWNSHIP, ROSS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : TRUSTEES, ROSS TOWNSHIP : POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. :

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 14)

Before the Court is a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants Ross Township, Ross Township Board of Trustees, Ross Township Police Department, Burton Roberts, Robert Bass, and Patrick Carr (Doc. 14). Also pending is a motion for summary judgment filed by the same defendants (Doc. 43). Plaintiff brings nine statutory and common law claims related to her termination from a former employment as a detective with the Ross Township Police Department. The motion for partial judgment on the pleadings targets all of the causes of action. Plaintiff disputes all of Defendants’ arguments, with one exception: She withdraws her Title VII claims against Defendants Roberts, Bass, and Carr. (Response, Doc. 17, Pg. ID 138.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion for partial judgment on the

pleadings and dismisses the Title VII claims against Defendants Roberts, Bass, and Carr in their individual capacities. Hobbs v. Lucas Cnty. Sheriff's Off, 537 F. Supp. 3d 962, 965 (N.D. Ohio 2021). As for the remaining arguments: Upon review, the motion for summary judgment also addresses all of Plaintiff's causes of actions, in substantially the same but even more substantive fashion than the motion for judgment on the pleadings. It promotes judicial economy here to address these claims in the context of a full record—that is, on the motion for summary judgment. Having considered the papers filed relating to the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. See Williamson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 417CV00217ALMCAN, 2017 WL 4573694, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-217, 2017 WL 4552555 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2017). The Court will address the motion for summary judgment when it becomes ripe. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wis JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Ross Township Board of Trustees, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-ross-township-board-of-trustees-ohsd-2023.