IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN (COLUMBUS) DIVISION

Brian Garrett, et al., 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD

The Ohio State University, Judge Michael H. Watson

 

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

Michael Alf, et al.,

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case: 2:21-cv-02542-MHW-EPD

 

The Ohio State University, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESET ORAL ARGUMENT

IN LIGHT OF IMMINENT RECUSAL MOTION(S)

Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, hereby respectfully move this Honorable Court to 

continue the oral argument scheduled for September 21, 2021 on the pending motion to dismiss

until such time that the Court resolves a forthcoming motion to recuse. Pursuant to S.D. Ohio 

Civ. R. 7.3, Plaintiffs consulted with Defendant regarding this request on September 13, 2021,

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1387
2

but as of the time of filing, have received no response from Defendant regarding its position on 

the request. This is Plaintiffs’ first request to reset the oral argument date. 

On September 9, 2021, this Court held a telephone conference with all parties. In that 

conference, the Court notified the parties about a reporter’s inquiry that caused the Court 

(Watson, J.) to review its previous disclosures and provide previously-undisclosed information 

concerning Judge Watson’s wife’s business. Specifically, the Court disclosed that Judge 

Watson’s wife owns a business that manufactures and sells flags, including The Ohio State 

University (“OSU”) flags; the Court disclosed that her business has a licensing agreement with 

Defendant and pays OSU a fee to use its trademark. Since then, NBC News and The Columbus 

Dispatch have reported that OSU also made certain financial payments to Judge Watson’s wife’s 

business, information that (if true) has not yet been disclosed by the Court or the defendant.

1

The Court instructed the parties to inform the Court by Sunday, September 19, 2021,

whether any party seeks the Court’s recusal in light of the newly-disclosed information 

concerning the Judge’s spouse’s business dealings with the Defendant.

At the September 9, 2021 conference, the Court also set oral argument on the motion to 

dismiss in the above-captioned case and related actions for September 21, 2021, two days after 

the deadline for filing of submission(s) concerning recusal.

The undersigned counsel is in the process of conferring with counsel for Plaintiffs in the 

related actions concerning the recusal issue. It is clear that one or more Plaintiff groups—

1

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-presiding-over-ohio-state-sex-abuse-scandallawsuits-flagged-n1278935; https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/09/13/federal-judgegives-plaintiffs-option-recuse-him-strauss-cases/8316905002/. The reported payment in 2021 

represents over 7% of a district judge’s salary. Plaintiffs do not know what payments, if any, the 

defendant made to the Court’s family business in prior years during which this action was 

pending.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 1388
3

including the undersigned—will move the Court to recuse itself from these cases. Plaintiffs will 

submit a separate filing requesting recusal on or before the Court-ordered deadline of September 

19, 2021. 

Plaintiffs believe that oral argument on the motions to dismiss should await resolution of 

the forthcoming recusal motion(s). It would be improper (or, at a minimum, create the 

appearance of impropriety) for the Court to hold oral argument while the Court is considering a 

pending recusal motion. In addition, should the Court grant a motion to recuse, it will plainly not 

decide any of the motions to dismiss, nor hear oral argument on those motions.

Given the uncertainty of this situation, Plaintiffs ask this Court for a prompt 

postponement of the date of oral argument. Absent prompt postponement, the time and expense 

of traveling to Columbus to participate in oral argument will result in costs being incurred 

imminently. We believe that a number of survivor Plaintiffs (many of whom do not live in 

Columbus or even Ohio) will wish to attend the argument, and understand survivor Plaintiffs are 

in the process of making travel arrangements to the courthouse, arranging time off from work, or 

seeking relief from family obligations (e.g., childcare). Other members of the public are likely 

also arranging to attend. Arguing counsel are dedicating their professional energies to prepare, 

including rescheduling other professional and personal commitments. Many Plaintiffs’ counsel 

will also be traveling from outside Ohio to participate in the argument. 

Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that the Court reset the oral argument date at this

juncture, before Plaintiffs expend further resources to attend and prepare for an oral argument 

that may not happen, and that in any event, should not take place until after resolution of the 

forthcoming recusal motion.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 1389
4

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Simina Vourlis____________

Simina Vourlis 

The Law Office of Simina Vourlis

856 Pullman Way 

Columbus, OH 43212 

(614) 487-5900 

(614) 487-5901 fax 

svourlis@vourlislaw.com

Rex A. Sharp

Larkin Walsh

Sarah T. Bradshaw

SHARP LAW, LLP

5301 W. 75th Street

Prairie Village, KS 66208

(913) 901-0505

(913) 901-0419 fax

rsharp@midwest-law.com 

lwalsh@midwest-law.com 

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Robert Allard

CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON AND ALLARD, LLP

96 North Third Street, Suite 620

San Jose, CA 95112

(408) 289-1417

(408) 289-8127 fax

rallard@cmalaw.net

Stephen Estey

ESTEY & BOMBERGER LLP 

2869 India Street

San Diego, CA 92103 

619-295-0035

619-295-0172 fax

steve@estey-bomberger.com

Daniel R. Karon (#0069304) 

KARON LLC 

700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Tel.: 216.622.1851 

dkaron@karonllc.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 1390
5

Joseph Sauder

SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

555 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

(610) 200-0580

(610) 421-1326

jgs@sstriallawyers.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 1391
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed and 

served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on September 14, 2021, on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Simina Vourlis___________

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 192 Filed: 09/14/21 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 1392