The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Olivia Haines, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:21cv688
v. Judge Michael R. Barrett
Greenfield Exempted Village Schools,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the School Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs have since filed (with leave of Court)1 an Amended
Complaint. (Doc. 44). In turn, the School Defendants have answered that pleading (Doc.
45) and filed a second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 46). The School
Defendants’ second Rule 12(c) Motion (Doc. 46)—filed in the wake of the Amended
Complaint (Doc. 44)—renders moot their first Motion (Doc. 32). See Greater Cincinnati
Coal. for the Homeless v. City of Cincinnati, No. C-1-08-603, 2009 WL 3029661, at *3
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2009) (citing Yates v. Applied Performance Techs., Inc., 205 F.R.D.
497, 499 (S.D. Ohio 2002)). Accordingly, the School Defendants’ (first) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 32) is hereby DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court
1 See (07/19/2022 Minute Entry).