UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF IMPLANT 

DENTISTRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KAMDAR, et al., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action 2:18-cv-15 

Judge George C. Smith 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (ECF 

No. 16), Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 18), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 

19). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay. (ECF No. 

16.) 

I. 

Plaintiffs, the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, Kevin J. O’Grady, D.D.S., and 

Scott Sayre, D.D.S. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants, challenging 

the constitutionality of two rules of the Ohio State Dental Board (“Board”), Ohio Administrative 

Code Sections 4715-5-04 and 4715-13-05 (the “challenged rules”), which regulate Board 

recognition of dental specialties and professional advertising of those specialties. (Compl., ECF 

No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from 

enforcing the challenged rules. (Id.) 

On March 14, 2018, the parties jointly moved to stay all proceedings pending the Board’s 

consideration of revisions to the challenged rules (“Joint Motion”). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 8.) In 
2 

their Joint Motion, the parties agreed that the anticipated revisions to the challenged rules may 

render Plaintiffs’ claims moot or significantly affect the Court’s analysis of the merits of 

Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 2-3.) The parties further agreed that a stay of the proceedings would 

not cause hardship to Plaintiffs because the Board voted to suspend enforcement of the 

challenged rules during the pendency of the rule revision process. (Id. at 3.) The Court promptly 

granted the Joint Motion and entered a stay of this case “through September 14, 2018, and if 

Defendants notify the Court in writing on or before September 14, 2018, that the Board has voted 

to revise the rules at issue, the stay will be extended until the rule revisions become effective.” 

(Mar. 15, 2018 Order 2, ECF No. 9.) 

On September 10, 2018, Defendants filed a status report, informing the Court that the 

Board voted to revise the challenged rules and to submit the proposed amendments to Ohio’s 

Common Sense Initiative Office (“CSI”) for review pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 107.56. 

(Defs.’ Status Report 1, ECF No. 17.) Defendants explained that, if CSI approves, the Board 

may proceed with the public rulemaking process pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 119, 

which includes further review by the Board, a public comment period, review by the Joint 

Commission on Agency Rule Review, and a second review by CSI to determine the business 

impact of the proposed rule. (Id. at 1-2.) This process will likely take several months and could 

potentially result in additional changes or no changes to the challenged rules. (Id.) Defendants 

assert that the stay should remain in place until the rule revisions become effective. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiffs seek to lift the stay, contending that the Board’s proposed rule revisions will not 

resolve or narrow their constitutional concerns. (Pl.’s Mot. to Lift Stay, ECF No. 16.) They 

assert that they initially agreed to a stay because they believed that the Board’s proposed rule 
3 

revisions would accommodate or take steps toward accommodating their constitutional concerns. 

(Id. at 3.) They no longer believe that to be true. Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer harm from 

the continued delay of this matter because the rulemaking process will not resolve their claims. 

(Id. at p. 4.) 

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay, asserting that the stay should remain in 

place until the revisions to the challenged rules become effective. (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp. 2, ECF 

No. 18.) Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ contention that the proposed changes will not 

modify the substance of the challenged rules and reassert that the revisions may render Plaintiffs’ 

claims moot or affect the Court’s analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id. at 3 and n. 1.) They also 

note that the challenged rules may undergo additional revisions during rulemaking process. (Id.

3.) Defendants assert that the parties “reasonably agreed not to expend resources litigating this 

case until the final language in the rules is established” and that Plaintiffs were aware of the 

lengthy rulemaking process when they initially agreed to a stay. (Id. at 3-4.) Finally, Defendants 

contend that neither Plaintiffs nor the public will suffer harm from the delay because the Board 

agreed to suspend enforcement of the challenged rules until any changes become effective. (Id., 

at p. 4.)

II. 

A district court possesses the inherent power to stay proceedings based on its authority to 

“control the disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel and for litigants . . . .” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 626-27 (6thCir. 

2014) (quoting Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 

396 (6th Cir. 1977) (holding that “the District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as 
4 

an incident to its power to control its own docket.”)). In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts 

commonly consider factors such as: (1) the need for a stay; (2) the stage of litigation; (3) whether 

the non-moving party will be unduly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged; (4) whether a stay 

will simplify the issues; and (5) whether burden of litigation will be reduced for both the parties 

and the court. Grice Eng’g, Inc. v. JG Innovs., Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920 (W.D. Wis. 2010) 

(citations omitted). See also Ferrell v. Wyeth–Ayerst Labs., Inc., No. 1:01–cv–447, 2005 WL 

2709623, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2005) (“There is no precise test in this Circuit for when a stay 

is appropriate. However, district courts often consider the following factors: the need for a stay, 

the balance of potential hardship to the parties and the public, and the promotion of judicial 

economy.”). The movant bears the burden of showing both a need for delay and that “neither the 

other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.” Ohio Envtl. Council, 565 

F.2d at 396.

III. 

Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that a stay is warranted pending 

completion of the rule revision process. 

The Court is persuaded that a stay is necessary and that it may directly reduce the burden 

of this litigation on both the parties and the Court. Although the parties disagree regarding the 

impact of the Board’s proposed amendments to the challenged rules, they agree that the rules 

will likely be revised in some manner. Significant modifications of the rules will impact the 

Court’s assessment of the merits and could even render Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges 

moot. Such modifications could also result in amendments to pleadings, duplicate discovery 

efforts, and revised dispositive motions. Under such circumstances, a stay is prudent, as it will 
5 

preserve the parties’ resources, promote judicial economy, and avoid potentially needless 

consideration of the constitutionality of the challenged rules. Cf. R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. 

Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500–01 (1941) (explaining that “[f]ew public interests have a higher 

claim upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with 

state policies); Spector Motor Serv. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944) (“If there is one 

doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that 

we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is 

unavoidable.”). 

The Court is also not persuaded that Plaintiffs, or the public, will suffer undue harm from 

a continuance of the stay. The Court recognizes that the State’s rule revision process is lengthy 

and that the stay could be in place for several months. Plaintiffs and the public will suffer 

minimal harm from such delay, however, because the Board voted to suspend enforcement of the 

challenged rules until the revisions are effective. Accordingly, the relevant factors weigh in 

favor of maintaining the stay during the rule revision process. 

IV. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (ECF 

No. 16.) This case is hereby STAYED until the revisions to the challenged rules become 

effective. Defendants are ORDERED to submit a status report to this Court thirty (30) days 

from the date of this Opinion and Order, and every thirty (30) days thereafter until the stay is 

lifted. Defendants are further ORDERED to notify the Court upon the completion of the rule 

revision process. 
6 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT