Smith v. Miami Valley Hospital

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ELAINE R. SMITH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:23-cv-365

vs.

MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 35) ______________________________________________________________________________

This case is before the Court upon Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 35), which remains pending even though Defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 58). Defendants are appealing this Court’s Order (1) denying Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on a motion for partial summary judgment; and (2) holding the qualified immunity determination in abeyance. Doc. No. 56. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Greer v. Strange Honey Farm, LLC, 114 F.4th 605, 612 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). A limited exception to this general “jurisdiction-divestiture rule” exists “for a notice of appeal from a ‘clearly nonappealable order[.]’” Id. (quoting Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981)). In the instant case, it is reasonably debatable whether the Order now on appeal (Doc. No. 56) constitutes a “clearly nonappealable order” due to its potential impact on the qualified immunity arguments Defendants raise in their motion for partial summary judgment. See Doc. No. 35. Consequently, Defendants’ appeal triggers the general jurisdictional-divesture rule, meaning this Court presently lacks jurisdiction to rule on Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. See Greer, 114 F.4th at 612.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling after the conclusion of Defendants’ current appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 17, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge