# McCormick v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Division

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · October 29, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10374249

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 29, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10374249

## Opinion text

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

MOSES MCCORMICK, et al., :
: Case No. 2:19-cv-03329
Plaintiffs, :
: JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
v. :
: Magistrate Judge Jolson
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON :
PLEAS, DOMESTIC DIVISION, et al. :
:
Defendants. :

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on several of the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or for
Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docs. 9, 12, 27, 53, 63, 69, 80, 110.) This case was originally filed
in the District of Arizona and each Motion is premised on the District of Arizona lacking personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants. Since these Motions were filed, however, this case has been
transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. Consequently, the arguments that these Motions raise
are now moot. For this reason, the Court DENIES the following Motions as MOOT:
 Defendant Buckeye Ranch, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
[#9];

 Defendants City of Columbus; Columbus Division of Police; Franklin County
Municipal Court; and Detective William Wallace’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue [#12];1

1 Defendant Franklin County Municipal Court also moved for dismissal, claiming there are no
allegations against it in the Complaint. Plaintiffs did, however, assert factual allegations against
the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Municipal Division, presumably intending to assert
the claims against the Franklin County Municipal Court. The Court finds that this, coupled with
the fact that the Franklin County Municipal Court was expressly named as a Defendant in the case,
gave Defendant Franklin County Municipal Court sufficient notice of the allegations against it.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and
 Defendant Hsiu-Chen Lu’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [#27];

 Defendant Todd D. Sidoti’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Improper Venue [#53];

 Defendants Franklin County, Ohio; Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Division; Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division; Franklin
County Department of Job and Family Services; Franklin County Child Support
Enforcement Agency; Susan Brown; and Darcy Shafer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction [#63];

 Defendant Catherine White’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction
[#69];

 Defendant Jeffrey Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss [#80];

 Defendant Rosemarie Welch’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction [#110].

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Algenon L. Marbley___
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: October 29, 2019

a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10374249. Public record. Not legal advice.