Valente v. University of Dayton
| John Valente |
| University of Dayton |
| 3:2008cv00225 |
| July 1, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Contract: Other Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Walter H Rice |
| Michael R Merz |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
147
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT. Having reconsidered its Decision and Order in light of Plaintiff's motion, the Court is not persuaded that it committed any manifest error of law. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/22/10. (cib) Modified to edit document type on 3/19/2010 (kpf1).
|
|
Filing
142
DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION - There are no genuine issues of material fact between the parties and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/4/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATE - This case is before the Court sua sponte upon receipt of a copy of Plaintiff's second Petition for Writ of Mandamus for Judicial Disqualification. Accordingly, the trial date and associated dates for final pretrial conference and filing the joint proposed final pretrial order are VACATED and will be re-set if the Sixth Circuit permits the case to proceed before the undersigned. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/11/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
135
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS RECUSAL - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Judicial Recusal (Doc. No. 122). The Second Motion for Recusal is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/19/2009. (kpf1) Modified on 11/19/2009 to reflect correct signature date (kpf1).
|
|
Filing
130
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY AND FOR DISCOVERY ON PENDING MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/16/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
115
DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT'S AUTHORIZATION FOR DEPOSITION PROTOCOL - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Court's Authorization for Deposition Protocol: Expedited Disposition Requested (Doc. No. 114). In order to avoid any potential problem that may arise out of Plaintiff's proposed method of deposition and in an effort to accommodate the depositions prior to the October 1, 2009, discovery dead line, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff conduct the depositions of a representative of the University of Dayton designated by Defendant, Cassie Scruenge, and Jada Smarda on September 25, 2009, commencing at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4 at the Unite d States Courthouse, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio. Plaintiff is responsible for noticing the depositions and issuing the necessary subpoenas. The depositions will be presided over by the undersigned and will be audio recorded on the Court 9;s audio recording system by Courtroom Deputy Clerk Gayle Hays. No video recording will be permitted because of the standing rule in the United States Courts against cameras in courtrooms. This Order does not purport to resolve any possible issues relating to notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition or the individual depositions; it merely sets the time and protocol. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/15/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 9/14/09. (bev1, )
|
|
Filing
112
REQUEST FOR STATUS REPORT - This case is before the Court sua sponte for case management purposes. The Court would appreciate receiving status reports from the parties on these and any other questions pertinent to the management of this case not later than September 18, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/8/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
111
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - There is no question that (1) all parties consented in the prior case, (2) the prior case was dismissed without prejudice on condition that any new case with related claims be filed before the undersigned, and (3) Judge R ice reasonably concluded that this case met that condition and thus referred it pursuant to the valid consent in the prior case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) authorizes a district judge to vacate a consent reference to a magistrate judge "under ex traordinary circumstances shown by any party." Plaintiff has not demonstrated any such extraordinary circumstances. The context in which the Motion was filed a year after the Order of Reference and after three recusal efforts failed plainly show it is intended as a forum-shopping measure. This Court should not interpret § 636(c)(4) to allow such forum shopping. The Motion to Vacate should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 9/11/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/24/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
110
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL ON CONDITION. The Court orders the payment of sanctions already awarded in this case stayed pending appeal, on condition Plaintiff not engage in any further sanctionable conduct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/4/2009. (gh1, )
|
|
Filing
105
DECISION AND ORDER ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Determine the Sufficiency of the Answers Defendant has made to Pl aintiff's Requests for Admission (Doc. No. 80 ). Defendant has filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. No. 95 ) and Plaintiff a Reply in support (Doc. No. 103 ). The Court finds that Defendant's objections to the Requests for Admission a re well taken and that the Defendant has therefore adequately responded to Plaintiff's Requests. As a general matter, the answers Plaintiff seeks to obtain to his Requests, at least as apparent from the motion papers, are an inappropriate use of this method of discovery because they seek admissions of relatively complex conclusions without appropriate qualifications or definitions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/27/2009. (kopf1, ) Modified on 7/29/2009 (phil1, ).
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER granting 81 Motion for Sanctions. Defendant is awarded its reasonable expenses of bringing the motion for protective order in the amount of $1,734.50 which Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant, through Defendants counsel, forthwith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/10/2009. A copy of the order was mailed to the Pro Se Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket sheet. (gh1, )
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice to Court of Disputed Magistrate Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 84). If Plaintiff wishes to have the Order of Reference vacated, he must filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) not later than July 10, 2009. His failure to do so will be deemed a waiver of any objection to the continued exercise of plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/29/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's email request for a discovery conference, received in the Court's MIDB email box between June 3 and June 5, 2009. It appears from the most recent email (from Plaintiff dated June 5, 2009) that the request for conference has been withdrawn. Written or email correspondence with the Court bears the risk of being perceived as ex parte communication and also is not docketed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the parties not communicate with the Court by way of correspondence, either electronic or otherwise. Any request for court action should be by motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. In any truly emergency situation, a party may contact Judicial Assistant Kelly Kopf who will arrange a prompt hearing on the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/10/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER VACATING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE - The stay is VACATED. This case is hereby set for scheduling conference by telephone at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2009. Not later than Thursday, May 14, 2009, the parties shall file an amended report complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/30/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATE - The trial date of August 17, 2009, and associated dates for filing the joint proposed final pretrial order and conducting the final pretrial conference are VACATED and will be re-set after decision by the Circuit Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/30/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
65
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/3/2009. (kopf1, )
|
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
| Search for this case: Valente v. University of Dayton | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: John Valente | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: University of Dayton | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
