Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack

S.D. Ohio

Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack

DecidedMay 19, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-02083

StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack (Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack) 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

Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack, (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

MIKEQUALE MILLER, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:19-cv-2083 : : JUDGE SARAH MORRISON vs. : : Magistrate Judge Vascura : PEP BOYS – MANNY, MOE & JACK, : et al., : : : Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Mikequale Miller’s “Petition to keep Defendant PEP BOYS under Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 61) and Defendant The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc.’s (“Pep Boys”) Memorandum in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 62) are now before the Court. Pro se filings enjoy liberal construction. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). Utilizing that directive yields a motion asking the Court to do two things. First, maintain jurisdiction over Pep Boys. Second, apply Pennsylvania law to any damages analysis. (ECF No. 61 at 1.) As to the former, the Court previously denied Pep Boys’ Motion to Dismiss in part such that Mr. Miller’s claims against Pep Boys for products liability and negligence remain pending. (ECF No. 58 at 12). Thus, the Court exercises jurisdiction over Pep Boys as to those claims and this portion of the motion is MOOT. Turning to the later ask, the issue of liability is not before the Court. Without liability, damages are not available. Thus, the question presented is not ripe. “Ripeness is a question of timing . . . [which] dictates that courts should decide only existing, substantial controversies, not hypothetical questions or possibilities. . . . Ripeness becomes an issue when a case is anchored in future events that may not occur as anticipated, or at all.” City Communications, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 888 F.2d 1081, 1089 (6th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). If a claim or issue presented to

the Court is not ripe, the Court lacks the authority to review it, because the Court cannot issue advisory opinions. See Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court therefore holds the section of the motion asking the Court to apply Pennsylvania law to any damage analysis is DENIED without prejudice. Pursuant to the above analysis, Mr. Miller’s “Petition to keep Defendant PEP BOYS under Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 61) is MOOT in part and DENIED without prejudice as to the remainder. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

MIKEQUALE MILLER, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:19-cv-2083 : : JUDGE SARAH MORRISON vs. : : Magistrate Judge Vascura : PEP BOYS – MANNY, MOE & JACK, : et al., : : : Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Mikequale Miller’s “Petition to keep Defendant PEP BOYS under Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 61) and Defendant The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc.’s (“Pep Boys”) Memorandum in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 62) are now before the Court. Pro se filings enjoy liberal construction. Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). Utilizing that directive yields a motion asking the Court to do two things. First, maintain jurisdiction over Pep Boys. Second, apply Pennsylvania law to any damages analysis. (ECF No. 61 at 1.) As to the former, the Court previously denied Pep Boys’ Motion to Dismiss in part such that Mr. Miller’s claims against Pep Boys for products liability and negligence remain pending. (ECF No. 58 at 12). Thus, the Court exercises jurisdiction over Pep Boys as to those claims and this portion of the motion is MOOT. Turning to the later ask, the issue of liability is not before the Court. Without liability, damages are not available. Thus, the question presented is not ripe. “Ripeness is a question of timing . . . [which] dictates that courts should decide only existing, substantial controversies, not hypothetical questions or possibilities. . . . Ripeness becomes an issue when a case is anchored in future events that may not occur as anticipated, or at all.” City Communications, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 888 F.2d 1081, 1089 (6th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). If a claim or issue presented to

the Court is not ripe, the Court lacks the authority to review it, because the Court cannot issue advisory opinions. See Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court therefore holds the section of the motion asking the Court to apply Pennsylvania law to any damage analysis is DENIED without prejudice. Pursuant to the above analysis, Mr. Miller’s “Petition to keep Defendant PEP BOYS under Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 61) is MOOT in part and DENIED without prejudice as to the remainder. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-pep-boys-manny-moe-jack-ohsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack