The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DEAN DENNIS, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-386
Plaintiffs, McFarland, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
VS.
OHIO STATE TEACHERS REPORT AND
RETIREMENT BOARD, et al., RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
Plaintiffs initiated this class action in May 2019 against the Ohio State Teachers
Retirement Board (“the Board”) to challenge defendant’s alleged unlawful elimination of vested
retirement benefits, namely the annual allowance increases or annual cost of living adjustments
beginning on July 1, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs bring claims under the United States
Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio state law. (/d.). In July 2019, the Board filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. 10). The
Board sought dismissal of plaintiff's claims based on its Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity. (Docs. 10, 11). Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an unopposed amended class action
complaint on August 26, 2019. (Doc. 14). In the amended class action complaint, in addition to
the Board, plaintiffs name several Board members as defendants in their individual capacity. On
October 23, 2019, defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended class
action complaint. (Docs. 21, 23, 24). Plaintiff's amended class action complaint “supersedes the
original complaint and is the ‘legally operative complaint’ in this matter.” Scuba v. Wilkinson,
No. 1:06-cv-160, 2006 WL 2794939, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2006) (citing Parry v. Mohawk
Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board’s first motion to dismiss (Doc. 10)
be DENIED as MOOT.
Date: __// 23) 2g Elerin Xba
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DEAN DENNIS, et al., Case No: 1:19-cv-386
Plaintiffs, McFarland, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
VS.
OHIO STATE TEACHERS
RETIREMENT BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).