Menkaus et al v. City of Milford, Ohio et al
Tara Menkaus, Linda Cassidy and Cassidy Enterprises, LLC |
City of Milford, Ohio and Christine Celsor |
1:2022cv00568 |
September 30, 2022 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Michael R Barrett |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 21 ORDER denying as moot Plaintiffs' #8 Corrected Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and #18 Motion for Partial Consolidation of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (as to Count I) with the Trial on the Merits as to Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Defendants' #11 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint remains pending. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/12/2023. (kkz) |
NOTATION ORDER: Plaintiffs' #5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (filed on 10/03/2023) is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiffs' #8 Corrected Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (filed on 10/07/2023) REMAINS PENDING. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 06/06/2023. (kkz) |
Filing 20 REPLY to Response to Motion re #18 MOTION Motion to Consolidate Preliminary Injunction with Trial on Merits and Deny Defendants' Uncaptioned Motion to Strike re #8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected, #16 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice) |
Filing 19 RESPONSE to Motion re #18 MOTION Motion to Consolidate Preliminary Injunction with Trial on Merits and Deny Defendants' Uncaptioned Motion to Strike re #8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected, #16 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Defendants Christine Celsor, City of Milford, Ohio. (Pacheco, Bryan) |
Filing 18 MOTION Motion to Consolidate Preliminary Injunction with Trial on Merits and Deny Defendants' Uncaptioned Motion to Strike re #8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected, #16 Reply to Response to Motion by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice) |
Filing 17 ORDER converting #15 Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to a motion to sever and dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 and DISMISSING without PREJUDICE Count III of the Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause claim. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/5/2022. (kkz) Modified on 12/16/2022 (kkz). |
Filing 16 REPLY to Response to Motion re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint [Oral Argument Requested] filed by Defendant City of Milford, Ohio. (Pacheco, Bryan) |
Filing 15 MOTION to Sever and dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus (Thompson, Maurice) Modified on 12/5/2022 to covert pursuant to #17 Order (kkz). |
Filing 14 RESPONSE to Motion re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint [Oral Argument Requested] filed by Defendants Christine Celsor, City of Milford, Ohio. (Pacheco, Bryan) |
Filing 13 RESPONSE in Opposition re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint [Oral Argument Requested] filed by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice) |
*PLEASE DISREGARD THIS NOTICE OF CORRECTION.* Notice of Correction re [FORMER DOC 12] Reply to Response to Motion: Document filed in error and will be refiled using correct ECF event. (kh) Modified docket text on 11/8/2022 (eh). |
Filing 12 REPLY to Response to Motion re #8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected filed by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice) Modified docket text and links to motion on 11/8/2022. (eh) Modified on 11/8/2022 (eh). |
Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint [Oral Argument Requested] by Defendants Christine Celsor, City of Milford, Ohio. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, Text of Proposed Order) (Pacheco, Bryan) |
Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan E Pacheco for Defendants Christine Celsor, City of Milford, Ohio (Pacheco, Bryan) |
Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly E. Pitcher for Defendants Christine Celsor, City of Milford, Ohio (Pitcher, Kelly) |
Filing 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Corrected by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice) |
Minute Entry and NOTATION ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Michael R. Barrett: Rule 65.1 Conference held on 10/7/2022; Maurice Thompson and Curt Hartman appeared for plaintiffs; Bryan Pacheco, Alex Triantafilou, and Kelly Pitcher appeared for defendants; case matters discussed; per agreement of the parties, during the pendency of this case and until further order of this Court, the City of Milford, Ohio, its officers, officials, employees or agents will not enforce or threaten to enforce City of Milford Municipal Code Sections 740.02, 740.03, and 740.16. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 10/7/2022. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 10/7/2022.(kh) |
Filing 7 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus re #2 Notice of Non-Compliance of Local Rule 5.1(c) (Clerk's Notice),, #1 Complaint, #6 Order, Re-Filing Exhibits in Text-Searchable Format (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Re-Filed Text Searchable Exhibit 2- Doc. 1-2, #2 Exhibit Re-Filed Text Searchable Exhibit 3 - Doc. 1-3, #3 Exhibit Re-Filed Text Searchable Exhibit 5 - Doc. 1-5) (Thompson, Maurice) |
Filing 6 ORDER Regarding Non-Compliance Local Rule 5.1 (c): the Court finds that the #1 Complaint is not in compliance with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1(c) and hereby Orders the refiling of the Document on or before 10/6/2022. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 10/5/2022. (kkz) |
Filing 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus. (Thompson, Maurice). Added MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order on 10/3/2022 (kl). |
Filing 4 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus re #2 Notice of Non-Compliance of Local Rule 5.1(c) (Clerk's Notice),, #1 Complaint, #3 Notice (Other) (Thompson, Maurice) |
Filing 3 NOTICE by Plaintiffs Linda Cassidy, Cassidy Enterprises, LLC, Tara Menkaus re #2 Notice of Non-Compliance of Local Rule 5.1(c) (Clerk's Notice),, #1 Complaint, Amended Civil Cover Sheet (Thompson, Maurice) |
Filing 2 Clerk's Notice of Non-Compliance Local Rule 5.1 (c): The Clerk's Office has reviewed your filing, docket #1 Complaint, filed by Tara Menkaus, Linda Cassidy., and it appears that one or more of the PDFs are not text searchable and therefore is not in compliance with Local Rule 5.1 (c). You shall refile docket #1 Complaint, filed by Tara Menkaus, Linda Cassidy. as a text searchable document(s), linking the document back to the original entry within 24-hours. Non-Compliance Deadline due by 10/3/2022. (bjc) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs ( Filing fee $ 402 paid - receipt number: AOHSDC-9070157), filed by Tara Menkaus, Linda Cassidy. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Tara Menkhaus, #2 Exhibit City of Milford STR Ordinance, #3 Exhibit Letter Denying Permit to Plaintiff, #4 Exhibit Correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant, #5 Exhibit Neighboring Permit, #6 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Thompson, Maurice) |
If this case is referred, it will be to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. (bjc) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.