Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987
-OC676 - W83
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
BARRON BROWN, 3
Plaintiff, : Case No. 15¢ev005987
vs.
GARY MOHR, et al., 5 Judge C. Brown
Defendants.
wee ke eee eee eR hE Re
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
ka Ree ee a ae eee ee ee EY
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Barron Brown, pro se, herein as captioned above
would respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny
Defendants’ Motion to Dicmiss and adhere to the order that has
been handed down to the State for proper proceeding. See
Appendix attached marked Exhibit-CC/United States District court,
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dated May 25, 2015,
Case No. 2:08-cv-15. For the reasons set forth Plaintiff
articulates Law and Argument attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
AYES 7/2
Barron Brown, pro se
#4465-913
Chillicothe Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 5500
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987
-OC676 - W84
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff with all due respect would request that this
Honorable Court take notice of the United States District Court
in Case No. 2:08-cv-15 Gerald Smith, et al., Plaintiff v. ODRC
et al., Defendants, brought forth an order on May 26, 2015 decided
by United States Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King, that specifically
stated that this is a matter to be adjudicated in this forum.
See attached order marked Uxhibit-CC. The Defendants are simply
in error in its reasoning, they have chose to waive their rights
to address the actual basis of what has been ordered by the higher
courts. The Settlement Agreement was clear and unambiguous.
This is a matter thet has been agreed upon by both parties, see
joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action
Settlement. The Defendants are attempting to confuse the court
by entertwining arguendo from a totally different situation that
is so far out of what is being asked of this forum to address
by the United States District Court. The caption in the complaint
states pursuant to Civil Rule 18.3626(C)(2), Breach of the Settlement
Agreement in Case No. 2:08-cv-15 Jury Demand endorsed hereon
pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2743:11, filed in the U.S. District
Court April, 2015, and decided May 26, 2015.
So for the Defendants to progress forward with frivilous
doctrines so far out of the scope of a sound mind, is definitely
a misrepresentation of honor, integrity, and justice. A complete
and total disregard for the law as it applies. When parties
(2)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987
OC676 - W85
to a lawsuit have entered into a binding settlement agreement
the trial court has the authority to enforce that settlement.
Tabbaa_v. Koglman, 149 Ohio App.3d 373, 377, 2002 Ohio 5328,
777 N.E.2d 338. When the parties to a lawsuit are in a binding
contract set forth by terms and agreements Defendants are
avoiding the truth of the matter here. One of the stipulations
in the binding contractual Settlement Agreement stated in pertinent
part, that "“[a]ny action resulting from the performance or non-
performance of this agreement shall be brought in State court.
Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and, as such,
basic principles of contract law apply. See: Rulli v. Fan Co. ,
79 Ohio St.3d 374, 1997 Chio 380, 683 N.E.2d 237, Defendants are
asking this Honorable Court to ignore the order and basic principles
of law, make an erroneous standard and misconstrue the law.
Through Defendants' own words, 1983 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 83-057 at
2-232 ("This office is not equipped to serve as a fact finding
body; that function may be served by your office or ultimately,
by the judiciary"). A valid settlement agreement is a contract
between parties, requiring a meeting of minds as well as an
offer and an acceptance thereof. Additionally, the terms of the
settlement agreement must be reasonable certain and clear.
Plaintiff "Barron Brown", hereinafter has requested Defendants to
explain what is not understood by the United States District
Court's decision in the Settlement Agreement in Smith et al., v.
ODRC et _al., Case No. 2:08-cv-15. The relief sought is for this
(3)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987
OC676 - W86
matter to be allowed to run its natural course to be brought
forth to a jury.
The failure to adhere to the United States
District Court order triggers a deprivation of a constitutional
right to due process laws, under the 14th and 8th Amendments
tights.
The lower courts would be in error as a matter of law
when it fails to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement
if it ignores the order of the United States District Court's
ruling.
Respectfully submitted,
arron Brown, -913
Chillicothe Correctional Inst.
P.O. Box 5500
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
(4)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM- 15CV005987
OC676 - W87
-hat a copy of the foreg
TO PLAINTIFF'S © T
mail to AssistantFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sép 11 8:
0C676 - was .
. Case: 2:08-cv-00015-NMK Doc #: 214 Filed: 05/26/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 977
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT oF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GERALD SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ve. Case No. 2:08-CV-15
Magistrate Judge King
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This was a class action brought, with the assistance of counsel
on behalf of inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution
(“CCI”) in connection with alleged exposure to unabated asbestos
throughout CCI. On April 26, 2012, this Court approved the parties’
stipulated private settlement agreement which provides, in pertinent
part, that “fa]ny action resulting from the performance or non-
performance of this agreement shall be brought in state court. Any
inmate at CCI may file an action in state court to enforce this
agreement.” Private Settlement Agreement, § 6(B), attached as Exhibit
1 to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action
Settlement, ECF 170.
Barron Brown, formerly a named plaintiff in this action, has
filed a motion alleging that officials at ccr have acted in breach of
- Exhibit CC‘OCéT6 - wa genni ‘County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987
Case: 2:08-cv-00015-NMK Doc #: 214 Filed: 05/26/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 978
the settlement agreement. Motion to Reopen Case, ECF 212 (“Motion to
Reopen”). This matter is now before the Court on its own motion.*
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the “performance
or non-performance of” the Private Settlement Agreement, this Court
has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Mr. Brown. The
Motion to Reopen, ECF 212, is therefore DENIED. This denial is without
prejudice, however, to appropriate proceedings in an appropriate state
court.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 213, is DENIED as moot
May 26, 2015 s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
—_—
‘befendants have filed a motion to dismiss the motion to reopen. Motion to
Dismiss, ECF 213. The Court concludes that the Motion to Reopen may be
resolved without consideration of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
2
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987 -OC676 - W83 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO BARRON BROWN, 3 Plaintiff, : Case No. 15¢ev005987 vs. GARY MOHR, et al., 5 Judge C. Brown Defendants. wee ke eee eee eR hE Re PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION FOR MOTION TO DISMISS ka Ree ee a ae eee ee ee EY I. Introduction Plaintiff, Barron Brown, pro se, herein as captioned above would respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dicmiss and adhere to the order that has been handed down to the State for proper proceeding. See Appendix attached marked Exhibit-CC/United States District court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dated May 25, 2015, Case No. 2:08-cv-15. For the reasons set forth Plaintiff articulates Law and Argument attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, AYES 7/2 Barron Brown, pro se #4465-913 Chillicothe Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987 -OC676 - W84 II. LAW AND ARGUMENT The Plaintiff with all due respect would request that this Honorable Court take notice of the United States District Court in Case No. 2:08-cv-15 Gerald Smith, et al., Plaintiff v. ODRC et al., Defendants, brought forth an order on May 26, 2015 decided by United States Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King, that specifically stated that this is a matter to be adjudicated in this forum. See attached order marked Uxhibit-CC. The Defendants are simply in error in its reasoning, they have chose to waive their rights to address the actual basis of what has been ordered by the higher courts. The Settlement Agreement was clear and unambiguous. This is a matter thet has been agreed upon by both parties, see joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement. The Defendants are attempting to confuse the court by entertwining arguendo from a totally different situation that is so far out of what is being asked of this forum to address by the United States District Court. The caption in the complaint states pursuant to Civil Rule 18.3626(C)(2), Breach of the Settlement Agreement in Case No. 2:08-cv-15 Jury Demand endorsed hereon pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2743:11, filed in the U.S. District Court April, 2015, and decided May 26, 2015. So for the Defendants to progress forward with frivilous doctrines so far out of the scope of a sound mind, is definitely a misrepresentation of honor, integrity, and justice. A complete and total disregard for the law as it applies. When parties (2)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987 OC676 - W85 to a lawsuit have entered into a binding settlement agreement the trial court has the authority to enforce that settlement. Tabbaa_v. Koglman, 149 Ohio App.3d 373, 377, 2002 Ohio 5328, 777 N.E.2d 338. When the parties to a lawsuit are in a binding contract set forth by terms and agreements Defendants are avoiding the truth of the matter here. One of the stipulations in the binding contractual Settlement Agreement stated in pertinent part, that "“[a]ny action resulting from the performance or non- performance of this agreement shall be brought in State court. Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and, as such, basic principles of contract law apply. See: Rulli v. Fan Co. , 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 1997 Chio 380, 683 N.E.2d 237, Defendants are asking this Honorable Court to ignore the order and basic principles of law, make an erroneous standard and misconstrue the law. Through Defendants' own words, 1983 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 83-057 at 2-232 ("This office is not equipped to serve as a fact finding body; that function may be served by your office or ultimately, by the judiciary"). A valid settlement agreement is a contract between parties, requiring a meeting of minds as well as an offer and an acceptance thereof. Additionally, the terms of the settlement agreement must be reasonable certain and clear. Plaintiff "Barron Brown", hereinafter has requested Defendants to explain what is not understood by the United States District Court's decision in the Settlement Agreement in Smith et al., v. ODRC et _al., Case No. 2:08-cv-15. The relief sought is for this (3)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987 OC676 - W86 matter to be allowed to run its natural course to be brought forth to a jury. The failure to adhere to the United States District Court order triggers a deprivation of a constitutional right to due process laws, under the 14th and 8th Amendments tights. The lower courts would be in error as a matter of law when it fails to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement if it ignores the order of the United States District Court's ruling. Respectfully submitted, arron Brown, -913 Chillicothe Correctional Inst. P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 (4)Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM- 15CV005987 OC676 - W87 -hat a copy of the foreg TO PLAINTIFF'S © T mail to AssistantFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sép 11 8: 0C676 - was . . Case: 2:08-cv-00015-NMK Doc #: 214 Filed: 05/26/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 977 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT oF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GERALD SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, ve. Case No. 2:08-CV-15 Magistrate Judge King OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., Defendants. ORDER This was a class action brought, with the assistance of counsel on behalf of inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in connection with alleged exposure to unabated asbestos throughout CCI. On April 26, 2012, this Court approved the parties’ stipulated private settlement agreement which provides, in pertinent part, that “fa]ny action resulting from the performance or non- performance of this agreement shall be brought in state court. Any inmate at CCI may file an action in state court to enforce this agreement.” Private Settlement Agreement, § 6(B), attached as Exhibit 1 to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement, ECF 170. Barron Brown, formerly a named plaintiff in this action, has filed a motion alleging that officials at ccr have acted in breach of - Exhibit CC‘OCéT6 - wa genni ‘County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Sep 11 8:30 AM-15CV005987 Case: 2:08-cv-00015-NMK Doc #: 214 Filed: 05/26/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 978 the settlement agreement. Motion to Reopen Case, ECF 212 (“Motion to Reopen”). This matter is now before the Court on its own motion.* Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the “performance or non-performance of” the Private Settlement Agreement, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Mr. Brown. The Motion to Reopen, ECF 212, is therefore DENIED. This denial is without prejudice, however, to appropriate proceedings in an appropriate state court. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 213, is DENIED as moot May 26, 2015 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King United States Magistrate Judge —_— ‘befendants have filed a motion to dismiss the motion to reopen. Motion to Dismiss, ECF 213. The Court concludes that the Motion to Reopen may be resolved without consideration of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 2