Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH

S.D. Ohio

Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH

DecidedApril 26, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-00059

StatusUnknown

This text of Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH (Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH) 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

Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH, (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

SHEETZ, INC., et al., : Case No. 3:24-cv-00059 : Plaintiffs, : District Judge Michael J. Newman : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : CITY OF CENTERVILLE, et al., : Defendants. :

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Mark Chilson as Counsel of Record for Defendant Epiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church (“Motion to Disqualify,” Doc. No. 13). The parties have briefed the issue of whether Attorney Chilson should be disqualified under Rule 3.7(a) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. They have not, however, briefed the related but separate issue of whether disqualification is required by the unsworn witness rule. See, e.g., U.S. v. Matsa, 540 F. App’x 520, 523 (6th Cir. 2013); U.S. v. Evanson, 584 F.3d 904, 909 (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 933 (2d Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court requests supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the unsworn witness rule disqualifies Attorney Chilson from representing his client in his matter. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to submit a supplemental brief, if they so choose. Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to submit a supplemental brief, if they so choose. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate 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 WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

SHEETZ, INC., et al., : Case No. 3:24-cv-00059 : Plaintiffs, : District Judge Michael J. Newman : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : CITY OF CENTERVILLE, et al., : Defendants. :

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Mark Chilson as Counsel of Record for Defendant Epiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church (“Motion to Disqualify,” Doc. No. 13). The parties have briefed the issue of whether Attorney Chilson should be disqualified under Rule 3.7(a) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. They have not, however, briefed the related but separate issue of whether disqualification is required by the unsworn witness rule. See, e.g., U.S. v. Matsa, 540 F. App’x 520, 523 (6th Cir. 2013); U.S. v. Evanson, 584 F.3d 904, 909 (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 933 (2d Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court requests supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the unsworn witness rule disqualifies Attorney Chilson from representing his client in his matter. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to submit a supplemental brief, if they so choose. Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to submit a supplemental brief, if they so choose. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sheetz, Inc. v. City of Centerville, OH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheetz-inc-v-city-of-centerville-oh-ohsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack