IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Robert Grundstein,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-624

Judge Watson

Magistrate Judge King

State of Ohio, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, challenges the constitutionality of

the Ohio’s vexatious litigator statute, O.R.C. § 2323.52, and the Ohio

Supreme Court’s vexatious litigator rule, Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(B). 

Plaintiff alleges that the application of the law and the rule to him has

unlawfully foreclosed to him all access to Ohio courts.1

 Named as

defendants are the Ohio Attorney General and the Chief Justice and

Associate Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court. This matter is now before

the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Pleading, Doc. No. 13. 

Plaintiff opposes that motion. Response to Defense Motion in Opposition

and Motion to Stay, Doc. No. 15. 

In response to the Amended Complaint,2

 defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss, Doc. No. 6, which challenges this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, as well as the legal sufficiency

of those claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Plaintiff

thereafter filed a motion to strike the Motion to Dismiss, Response and

1

Although plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 9, insists that this

action challenges only Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(B), the Complaint also expressly

“asks that all enforcement of all rulings against [plaintiff] pursuant to Ohio

Revised Code Section[] 2323.52 (vexatious litigator statute) be enjoined.” 

Complaint, p. 2.

2

The Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 3, merely corrects certain alleged 

typographical errors in the original Complaint, Doc. No. 1.

Case: 2:11-cv-00624-MHW-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 9, as well as a motion to further amend the

complaint to join the Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court as an additional

defendant. Motion to Amend Complaint, Join Party and Consolidate

Documents, etc., Doc. No. 11. 

The Motion to Stay Further Pleading asks that “the Court stay any

further pleading by either party pending resolution of the jurisdictional

arguments raised in” the Motion to Dismiss. Id . at 2. Federal trial

courts possess the inherent authority to manage their own dockets, see

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997), and a request for a stay

is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229 (6th Cir. 1981). In

exercising that discretion, a court must take into account both the needs

of the litigants and the broader societal interests implicated by the

litigation and the request for a stay. Williams v. New Day Farms, LLC,

2010 WL 3522397, *1 (S.D. Ohio September 7, 2010)(citing Marrese v.

American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 706 F.2d 1488, 1493 (7 th Cir.

1983)). Considering those factors, the Court concludes that a stay of

this action pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is warranted.

The Motion to Dismiss, which does not depend on discovery for

resolution and which is potentially dispositive of the entire litigation,

is now ripe for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff has not

articulated any persuasive reason why he would be prejudiced by a stay

of the proceedings pending resolution of that motion. Under these

circumstances, continued litigation of the action, which necessarily

demands the attention of all the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, does 

not serve the broader interests of society. The Court therefore

concludes that a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the Motion to

Dismiss is warranted.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00624-MHW-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
WHEREUPON Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Pleading, Doc. No. 13,

is GRANTED.

All further proceedings are STAYED pending resolution of defendants’

Motion to Dismiss.

 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

March 9, 2012

(Date)

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00624-MHW-NMK Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>