1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 1:18-cv-357 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO EXTEND DEADLINE AND 

ESTABLISH BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ 

APPLICATION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

 

Before: Moore, Circuit Judge; Black and Watson, District Judges. 

Before the Court is a Motion to Extend Deadline and Establish Briefing Schedule for 

Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Plaintiffs.1 (Doc. 274). 

On May 3, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to declare the redistricting plan 

enacted in H.B. 369 unconstitutional and enjoined the State of Ohio from conducting any elections 

using the plan enacted in H.B. 369 in any future congressional elections. (Doc. 262 at 297). The 

Court’s Opinion and Order renders Plaintiffs “prevailing parties” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

Plaintiffs assert that if they succeed in defending this Court’s Opinion and Order on appeal, the 

fees to which Plaintiffs are entitled will increase. (Doc. 274 at 2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs request 

that the Court extend the deadline for their application for fees and order a briefing schedule to 

commence sixty days after the later of either (1) the exhaustion of the appellate process as to the 

 

1

 Plaintiffs include Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio State 

University College Democrats, Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats, Hamilton County Young 

Democrats, Linda Goldenhar, Douglas Burks, Sarah Inskeep, Cynthia Libster, Kathryn Deitsch, Luann 

Boothe, Mark John Griffiths, Lawrence Nadler, Chitra Walker, Tristan Rader, Ria Megnin, Andrew Harris, 

Aaron Dagres, Elizabeth Myer, Beth Hutton, Teresa Thobaben, and Constance Rubin (“Plaintiffs”). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 276 Filed: 06/14/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 23734
2 

final judgment, or (2) the expiration of Defendants’ and Intervenors’ time to appeal. (Id. at 3). 

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ Motion, and finding it to be well-taken, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadline and Establish Briefing Schedule 

for Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorneys’ fees is GRANTED. If Plaintiffs remain prevailing 

parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), the parties shall comply with the following briefing schedule: 

1) Opening brief due 60 days after the later of either (1) the exhaustion of the appellate 

process as to the final judgment in this action, or (2) the expiration of Defendants’ 

and Intervenors’ time to appeal the final judgment; 

2) Response briefs, if any, due 60 days after the filing of the opening brief; and 

3) Reply briefs, if any, due 30 days after the filing of the response briefs. 

ENTERED: June 14, 2019

s/ Timothy S. Black 

HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. BLACK 

United States District Judge 

s/ Karen Nelson Moore 

HONORABLE KAREN NELSON MOORE 

United States Circuit Judge 

s/ Michael H. Watson 

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

United States District Judge

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 276 Filed: 06/14/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 23735