The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DOE NO. 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:22-cv-337
vs.
BETHEL LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT District Judge Michael J. Newman
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO BRIEF WHETHER ADJUDICATION OF
PLAINTIFFS’ STATE LAW CLAIM SHOULD BE STAYED UNTIL State ex rel. Croley v.
Bethel Local School District Board of Education, No. 22 CV 279 (Miami Cnty. C.P. Ct. July
21, 2022) RESOLVES; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
REDUCE THE RULE 11 SAFE HARBOR DEADLINE (Doc. No. 61)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Reduce the Rule 11 Safe Harbor
Deadline.” Doc. No. 61. Seeking an immediate ruling, Plaintiffs urge this Court to discard the
21-day safe harbor provision applicable to Rule 11 to avoid prejudice if it were to rule on the
pending motions before the safe harbor period expires. Id. at PageID 1412–13; see Ridder v. City
of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 295 (6th Cir. 1997).
Unbeknownst to the Court, a plaintiff filed suit in the Miami County Common Pleas Court
against Defendants in this case on July 21, 2022, alleging that Defendants violated Ohio’s Open
Meetings Act on December 7, 2021 during an improper executive session. See State ex rel. Croley
v. Bethel Local School District Board of Education, No. 22 CV 279 (Miami Cnty. C.P. Ct. July
21, 2022). Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Act by deliberating in
executive session about whether transgender students could use bathrooms that corresponded with
their gender identity. Complaint at 3–4, State ex rel. Croley v. Bethel Local School District Board
of Education, No. 22 CV 279 (Miami Cnty. C.P. Ct. July 21, 2022). The plaintiff in Miami County
seeks to undo any action that occurred during the executive session—precisely the remedy
Plaintiffs seek here. Id. at 9; see Doc. No. 1 at PageID 24; Doc. No. 5 at PageID 52.
Given this pending state court case, and considering the strong interests in comity and
fairness owed to our sister state courts, the Court is considering entering a stay on Plaintiffs’ state
law claim while the action proceeds in Miami County. However, this stay would not affect the
remaining federal law claims. To that end, the Court ORDERS the parties to brief whether
Plaintiffs’ state law claim ought to be stayed, see Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936),
until the state court completes its review of whether Defendants violated Ohio’s Open Meetings
Act on December 7, 2021. Both parties shall have until March 17, 2023 to file briefs in response
to this issue. Because this will place all briefing in the present case past the original safe harbor
deadline, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 3, 2023 s/ Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge