Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N4
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
Graciela Argote-Romero,
Case No. 23CV-004469
Plaintiff,
Judge Noble
Vv.
LAZ Parking LTD., LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT ARENA DISTRICT CA I, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Pursuant to Rule 26(C) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Arena District CA
I, LLC (“ADC”) moves the Court for a protective order staying discovery until the Court rules on
ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted, will dispose of this case as a matter
of law without any need for discovery. The basis for this Motion is set forth in the attached
Memorandum in Support.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marion H. Little, Jr.
Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)
ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
41 S. High Street, Suite 3500
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel.: (614) 365-9900
Fax: (614) 365-7900
little@litohio.com
Counsel for Defendant Arena District CA I,
LLC
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N4
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
INTRODUCTION
This case is before the Court on account of Plaintiffs claim that ADC’s enforcement of its
private property rights amounts to an unlawful pattern of criminal racketeering. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that, over a period of approximately three months, she parked at a metered space
on ADC’s property at Parks Edge Lane four separate times without paying her meter as required
by the posted notice. [Compl. at J] 12-21.] After receiving, and ignoring, three parking violations
and a mailed letter reminding her of the outstanding amount due, Plaintiff received a fourth
violation, at which point she alleges ADC had her vehicle booted. Plaintiff then paid $365 and the
boot was removed after less than one day. [Id. at {| 14-21, 43-47, Figure 8.]
Relying on these facts, she filed a Complaint accusing ADC of nine (9) separate crimes,
including an alleged violation of Ohio’s RICO equivalent, the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (OCPA).
Because Plaintiff’s claims are devoid of merit, ADC has moved for judgment on the pleadings,
seeking judgment in its favor on each of her claims. That motion is fully briefed and pending this
Court’s resolution. Should the Court grant the motion, it will dispose of Plaintiff’s Complaint
against ADC in its entirety.
Because no discovery is necessary for this Court to determine whether Plaintiff has stated
claims upon which relief can be granted, ADC respectfully requests that the Court stay all
discovery pending its resolution of ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
IL. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. The Court Should Stay Discovery Pending Its Order On ADC’s Motion For
Judgment On The Pleadings.
Rule 26(C) affords this Court “extensive jurisdiction and power over discovery.” State ex
el. Grandview Hospital v. Groman, 51 Ohio St.3d 94, 95 (1990); accord: MA Equip. LeasingL
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N4
L.LC. v. Tilton, 2012-Ohio-4668, § 13 (10th Dist.) (“Trial courts possess broad discretion over
the discovery process.”) This includes the power to stay a party’s requests for discovery
altogether. See Civ.R. 26(C) (trial court has authority to order “that the discovery not be had”)
1 The Court Need Not — And Indeed Cannot — Resort To Any Matters
Outside Of The Pleadings That May Be Revealed In Discovery.
Entry of an order staying discovery is most warranted where, as here, a dispositive motion
is pending before the Court. “Appellate courts in Ohio” routinely “conclude[],” in fact, “that
discovery is unnecessary for a trial court to decide a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Haven v. Lodi, 2022-Ohio-3957, {32 (9th Dist.) (collecting
cases); see also Wiles v. Miller, 2013-Ohio-3625, J 44 (10th Dist.) (“no additional discovery is
needed for a court to rule on a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings”);
accord: Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App. 3d 188, 193 (2d Dist. 2006) (“Considering that the
motion to dismiss was based on the allegations in the complaint and might dispose of the litigation,
the trial court acted within its discretion when it granted the stay of discovery.”); Lindow v. N.
Royalton, 104 Ohio App.3d 152, 159 (8th Dist.1995).
Staying discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion only makes sense. “When
considering a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, a trial court’s review is limited to the
Complaint.” State ex rel. Sterling v. Haddox, 2001 WL 1913833, *3 (Sth Dist.). “Consideration
ofa motion to dismiss is [similarly] restricted to the pleadings.” Crane Serv. & Inspections, LLC
v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co., 2018-Ohio-3622, § 33 (12th Dist.); see also Haven,
2022-Ohio-3957 at § 32 (because a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is based only on the complaint,
discovery is of “no consequence until the disposition of the motion to dismiss” (citation omitted)).
Thus, “[t]he completion of discovery is not relevant to the granting of a motion to dismiss” Lindow,
104 Ohio App. 3d at 159, or toa motion for judgment on the pleadings, Sterling, 2001 WL 1913833
3
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N4
at *3. See also White v. Cent. Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC, 2019-Ohio-1078, 15 (10th Dist.)
(affirming trial court’s decision to stay discovery pending resolution motion for judgment on the
pleadings to “relieve[] the parties of incurring unnecessary expenses if the dispositive motion is
granted”).
Thus, in the Tenth District, “[a] trial court acts within its discretion when it grants a stay of
discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.” Thomson v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. &
Corr., 2010-Ohio-416, § 32 (10th Dist.); Wiles, 2013-Ohio-3625 at | 44; White, 2019-Ohio-1078
at
J 15
2. Granting A Stay Will Save The Parties — And The Court — Time And
Resources.
“The purpose of a discovery stay during the pendency of a dispositive motion is to avoid
the unnecessary expense and burden of discovery should the dispositive motion be granted.” King
vy. Divoky, 2021-Ohio-1712, { 20-21 (9th Dist.). Staying discovery for these purposes alone is
wholly “reasonable.” See White, 2019-Ohio-1078, § 15 (“This action by the trial court was
reasonable because appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was a dispositive motion, and
staying discovery in this context relieves the parties of incurring unnecessary expenses if the
dispositive motion is granted.”).
Considerations of expediency and discovery burdens weigh heavily here for three reasons.
First because Plaintiff has alleged a multitude of claims (all of which disappear if the Court grants
ADC judgment) and second because her claims include an alleged violation of Ohio’s RICO act,
the OCPA. Third, Plaintiffs actual incurred losses are $365 and the loss of use of her car for part
of one day.
Federal courts have recognized that due to their inherent complexity, RICO claims tend to
“force[]” a defendant “to conduct expensive pretrial discovery in order to demonstrate the
4
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N5
groundlessness of the plaintiff's claim.” Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, IIl., 520 F.3d
797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008); see also e.g., Miller v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 WL 2246310, at
*3 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2010) (claims “alleging fraud or RICO violations, have the potential to place
a discovery burden on the defendants”). As Judge Posner explained
The Court [in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] was concerned
lest a defendant be forced to conduct expensive pretrial discovery in order to
demonstrate the groundlessness of the plaintiff's claim. But the concern is as
applicable to a RICO case, which resembles an antitrust case in point of complexity
and the availability of punitive damages and of attorneys’ fees to the successful
plaintiff. RICO cases, like antitrust cases, are “big” cases and the defendant should
not be put to the expense of big-case discovery on the basis of a threadbare claim
Limestone, 520 F.3d at 803 (cleaned up).]
“Moreover, it is improper for an attorney to file a RICO claim without factual support on the hope
that discovery will support it.” Loncarv. W. Peak, LLC, 2011 WL 1211522, at *5 (D. Colo. Mar.
30, 2011)
Stays of discovery are therefore commonly granted pending the district court’s resolution
of the defendant’s dispositive motion in RICO actions. See Miller, 2010 WL 2246310, at *3
(granting stay of discovery where plaintiff alleged 8 separate claims, “several of [plaintiff s]causes
of action, including those alleging fraud or RICO violations, have the potential to place a discovery
burden on the defendants” and “the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed”); see also
Harbinger Cap. Partners LLC v. Ergen, 2015 WL 1133503, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2015)
(granting motion to stay discovery pending outcome of motions to dismiss where plaintiff asserted
claims under RICO and Colorado’s RICO act, noting that a stay “furthers the ends of economy
and efficiency, since if the motion is granted, there will be no need for further proceedings”
(cleaned up, citation omitted)); Rutan v. Carswell Cherokee Tr., 2020 WL 13532882, at *2 (S.D.
Ga. Jan. 6, 2020) (granting stay of discovery where defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - NS
plaintiffs did not “sufficiently allege[J” RICO violations, among other claims and “[t]hese
arguments represent facial attacks which likely will not require additional discovery to resolve”).
Indeed, one federal court — citing its “ample experience with the assertion of bogus RICO
claims for the purpose of ... extracting a coercive settlement due to the in terrorem nature of
labeling someone as a racketeer” — follows an “unvarying practice” of “stay[ing] all discovery in
the case until the defendants have had an opportunity to move to dismiss the RICO claims and
the Court has decided the motion.” Major, Lindsey & Afr., LLC v. Mahn, 2010 WL 3959609, at
*6-7 (S.D.NY. Sept. 7, 2010).!
Nor are the federal courts alone in this sentiment. Ohio courts likewise agree that a stay of
discovery pending resolution ofa motion to dismiss is justified where well-settled legal principles
likely foreclose the plaintiff's claims. See e.g., Henderson v. Synenberg, 2014-Ohio-4089, {{] 19-
20 (8th Dist.) (“The conclusory nature of Henderson’s allegations coupled with the assertion of
immunity were enough to justify the court’s decision to stay discovery pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss.”)
3. Plaintiff's Threadbare Ohio RICO Claim Does Not Warrant Discovery
Before The Court Determines That It Should Survive.
In its motion for judgment, ADC cited multiple defects in Plaintiff's OCPA claim with
extensive Ohio and federal case law support for its arguments, including: (1) that because her
alleged underlying criminal claims failed, Plaintiff had failed to allege any “pattern” of corrupt
1 See also Guajardo v. Martinez, 2015 WL 12831683, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2015) (staying discovery
pending resolution of motion to dismiss where plaintiff's “complex claims under civil RICO” justified defendants’
concerns over burdensome and expensive discovery); New Mexico Oncology & Hematology Consultants. Ltd. v.
Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2013 WL 12304061, at *1-2 (D.N.M. July 11, 2013) (discovery stayed pending
solution of RICO and antitrust claims given that “substantial and expensive discovery” could be avoided if
dispositive motion were granted); Barbieri v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2012 WL 3096701, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2012)
(denying motion for expedited discovery and granting a motion to stay discovery where plaintiff was permitted to
amend its complaint to add RICO claims); Van Beek v. Ag-Credit Bonus Partners, 2006 WL 8445799, at *1-2 (D.
Idaho July 21, 2006) (granting stay of discovery pending decision on motion to dismiss in RICO action).
6
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N5
activity; (2) Plaintiff had failed to identify any “enterprise” that was distinct from the three
“person” Defendants joined together; (3) Plaintiff had expressly alleged that the LAZ defendants
had acted as ADC’s agents, even though “an organization cannot join with its own members to do
that which it normally does and thereby form an [OCPA] enterprise separate and apart from
itself”; and (4) Plaintiff had failed to allege that ADC conducted or participated in the non-existent
enterprise’s affairs, as opposed to its own affairs.
Plaintiff responded primarily by declaring her OCPA allegations sufficient because she
says they are. She suggested the Court could infer a “pattern” of corrupt activity by assuming
ADC must have engaged in the same alleged acts toward other non-paying trespassers — even
though she failed to adequately allege any criminal conduct on ADC’s part at all (whether directed
at her or anyone else). Further, she cited no law in rejoinder to ADC’s detailed arguments about
her failure to allege any “enterprise” under R.C. 2923.31(C). ADC “should not be put to the
expense [or trouble] of big-case discovery on the basis of” so “threadbare” an OCPA claim
Limestone, 520 F.3d at 803.
B. Plaintiffs Response In Opposition To ADC’s Motion Confirms That Each And
Every One Of Her Claims May Be Resolved As A Matter Of Law Without
Discovery.
For her other eight causes of action, Plaintiff followed the same pattern. Rather than direct
the Court to any caselaw rebutting ADC’s reliance on State v. Hope, 9 Ohio App. 3d 65 (8th Dist.
1983), as precluding Plaintiff's theft of vehicle claim, she argued that the Hope court “reached the
right result for the wrong reasons.” Instead of explaining why the Court should not follow
Canterbury v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, 2001 WL 1681132 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2001) and McGee
vy. East Ohio Gas Co., 111 F. Supp.2d 979 (S.D. Ohio 2000) in resolving her extortion, theft of
US. Demolition & Contracting. Inc. v. O'Rourke Constr. Co., 94 Ohio App. 3d 75, 85 (8th Dist. 1994).
7
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N5
money, and coercion claims, Plaintiff misrepresented the cases. And in lieu of addressing the fact
that she had not identified two or more separate parties capable of conspiring or engaging in
complicity with one another, Plaintiff ignored the issue.
No amount of discovery is necessary for this Court to determine whether any of Plaintiff’s
claims should survive ADC’s motion for judgment. Thomson, 2010-Ohio-416 at § 32; Wiles,
2013-Ohio-3625 at § 44; White, 2019-Ohio-1078 at § 15. Even Plaintiff’s assertion that ADC’s
remedies to defend its property are “limited” to establishing a private tow-away zone or requesting
that law enforcement cite Plaintiff can be resolved as a matter of law, since neither of the two
statutes she cites for that argument say anything of the sort. See R.C. 4511.681; R.C. 4513.601
Til. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should grant ADC’s Motion and enter an order staying all
discovery until disposition of ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marion H. Little, Jr.
Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)
ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
41 S. High Street, Suite 3500
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel.: (614) 365-9900
Fax: (614) 365-7900
little@litohio.com
Counsel for Defendant
Arena District CA I, LLC
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469
0G546 - N5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was filed electronically on September 15,
2023, in accordance with the Court’s Electronic Filing Guidelines. Notice of this filing will be
sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s Electronic Filing System. Parties may access this
filing through the Court’s Filing System
/s/ Marion H. Little, Jr.
Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679)
1009884
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO Graciela Argote-Romero, Case No. 23CV-004469 Plaintiff, Judge Noble Vv. LAZ Parking LTD., LLC, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANT ARENA DISTRICT CA I, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Pursuant to Rule 26(C) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Arena District CA I, LLC (“ADC”) moves the Court for a protective order staying discovery until the Court rules on ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted, will dispose of this case as a matter of law without any need for discovery. The basis for this Motion is set forth in the attached Memorandum in Support. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marion H. Little, Jr. Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679) ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP 41 S. High Street, Suite 3500 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel.: (614) 365-9900 Fax: (614) 365-7900 little@litohio.com Counsel for Defendant Arena District CA I, LLC Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N4 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court on account of Plaintiffs claim that ADC’s enforcement of its private property rights amounts to an unlawful pattern of criminal racketeering. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, over a period of approximately three months, she parked at a metered space on ADC’s property at Parks Edge Lane four separate times without paying her meter as required by the posted notice. [Compl. at J] 12-21.] After receiving, and ignoring, three parking violations and a mailed letter reminding her of the outstanding amount due, Plaintiff received a fourth violation, at which point she alleges ADC had her vehicle booted. Plaintiff then paid $365 and the boot was removed after less than one day. [Id. at {| 14-21, 43-47, Figure 8.] Relying on these facts, she filed a Complaint accusing ADC of nine (9) separate crimes, including an alleged violation of Ohio’s RICO equivalent, the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act (OCPA). Because Plaintiff’s claims are devoid of merit, ADC has moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking judgment in its favor on each of her claims. That motion is fully briefed and pending this Court’s resolution. Should the Court grant the motion, it will dispose of Plaintiff’s Complaint against ADC in its entirety. Because no discovery is necessary for this Court to determine whether Plaintiff has stated claims upon which relief can be granted, ADC respectfully requests that the Court stay all discovery pending its resolution of ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. IL. LAW AND ANALYSIS A. The Court Should Stay Discovery Pending Its Order On ADC’s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. Rule 26(C) affords this Court “extensive jurisdiction and power over discovery.” State ex el. Grandview Hospital v. Groman, 51 Ohio St.3d 94, 95 (1990); accord: MA Equip. LeasingL Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N4 L.LC. v. Tilton, 2012-Ohio-4668, § 13 (10th Dist.) (“Trial courts possess broad discretion over the discovery process.”) This includes the power to stay a party’s requests for discovery altogether. See Civ.R. 26(C) (trial court has authority to order “that the discovery not be had”) 1 The Court Need Not — And Indeed Cannot — Resort To Any Matters Outside Of The Pleadings That May Be Revealed In Discovery. Entry of an order staying discovery is most warranted where, as here, a dispositive motion is pending before the Court. “Appellate courts in Ohio” routinely “conclude[],” in fact, “that discovery is unnecessary for a trial court to decide a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Haven v. Lodi, 2022-Ohio-3957, {32 (9th Dist.) (collecting cases); see also Wiles v. Miller, 2013-Ohio-3625, J 44 (10th Dist.) (“no additional discovery is needed for a court to rule on a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings”); accord: Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App. 3d 188, 193 (2d Dist. 2006) (“Considering that the motion to dismiss was based on the allegations in the complaint and might dispose of the litigation, the trial court acted within its discretion when it granted the stay of discovery.”); Lindow v. N. Royalton, 104 Ohio App.3d 152, 159 (8th Dist.1995). Staying discovery pending resolution of a dispositive motion only makes sense. “When considering a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, a trial court’s review is limited to the Complaint.” State ex rel. Sterling v. Haddox, 2001 WL 1913833, *3 (Sth Dist.). “Consideration ofa motion to dismiss is [similarly] restricted to the pleadings.” Crane Serv. & Inspections, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co., 2018-Ohio-3622, § 33 (12th Dist.); see also Haven, 2022-Ohio-3957 at § 32 (because a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is based only on the complaint, discovery is of “no consequence until the disposition of the motion to dismiss” (citation omitted)). Thus, “[t]he completion of discovery is not relevant to the granting of a motion to dismiss” Lindow, 104 Ohio App. 3d at 159, or toa motion for judgment on the pleadings, Sterling, 2001 WL 1913833 3 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N4 at *3. See also White v. Cent. Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC, 2019-Ohio-1078, 15 (10th Dist.) (affirming trial court’s decision to stay discovery pending resolution motion for judgment on the pleadings to “relieve[] the parties of incurring unnecessary expenses if the dispositive motion is granted”). Thus, in the Tenth District, “[a] trial court acts within its discretion when it grants a stay of discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.” Thomson v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-416, § 32 (10th Dist.); Wiles, 2013-Ohio-3625 at | 44; White, 2019-Ohio-1078 at J 15 2. Granting A Stay Will Save The Parties — And The Court — Time And Resources. “The purpose of a discovery stay during the pendency of a dispositive motion is to avoid the unnecessary expense and burden of discovery should the dispositive motion be granted.” King vy. Divoky, 2021-Ohio-1712, { 20-21 (9th Dist.). Staying discovery for these purposes alone is wholly “reasonable.” See White, 2019-Ohio-1078, § 15 (“This action by the trial court was reasonable because appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was a dispositive motion, and staying discovery in this context relieves the parties of incurring unnecessary expenses if the dispositive motion is granted.”). Considerations of expediency and discovery burdens weigh heavily here for three reasons. First because Plaintiff has alleged a multitude of claims (all of which disappear if the Court grants ADC judgment) and second because her claims include an alleged violation of Ohio’s RICO act, the OCPA. Third, Plaintiffs actual incurred losses are $365 and the loss of use of her car for part of one day. Federal courts have recognized that due to their inherent complexity, RICO claims tend to “force[]” a defendant “to conduct expensive pretrial discovery in order to demonstrate the 4 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N5 groundlessness of the plaintiff's claim.” Limestone Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Lemont, IIl., 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008); see also e.g., Miller v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 WL 2246310, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2010) (claims “alleging fraud or RICO violations, have the potential to place a discovery burden on the defendants”). As Judge Posner explained The Court [in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)] was concerned lest a defendant be forced to conduct expensive pretrial discovery in order to demonstrate the groundlessness of the plaintiff's claim. But the concern is as applicable to a RICO case, which resembles an antitrust case in point of complexity and the availability of punitive damages and of attorneys’ fees to the successful plaintiff. RICO cases, like antitrust cases, are “big” cases and the defendant should not be put to the expense of big-case discovery on the basis of a threadbare claim Limestone, 520 F.3d at 803 (cleaned up).] “Moreover, it is improper for an attorney to file a RICO claim without factual support on the hope that discovery will support it.” Loncarv. W. Peak, LLC, 2011 WL 1211522, at *5 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2011) Stays of discovery are therefore commonly granted pending the district court’s resolution of the defendant’s dispositive motion in RICO actions. See Miller, 2010 WL 2246310, at *3 (granting stay of discovery where plaintiff alleged 8 separate claims, “several of [plaintiff s]causes of action, including those alleging fraud or RICO violations, have the potential to place a discovery burden on the defendants” and “the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed”); see also Harbinger Cap. Partners LLC v. Ergen, 2015 WL 1133503, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2015) (granting motion to stay discovery pending outcome of motions to dismiss where plaintiff asserted claims under RICO and Colorado’s RICO act, noting that a stay “furthers the ends of economy and efficiency, since if the motion is granted, there will be no need for further proceedings” (cleaned up, citation omitted)); Rutan v. Carswell Cherokee Tr., 2020 WL 13532882, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2020) (granting stay of discovery where defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - NS plaintiffs did not “sufficiently allege[J” RICO violations, among other claims and “[t]hese arguments represent facial attacks which likely will not require additional discovery to resolve”). Indeed, one federal court — citing its “ample experience with the assertion of bogus RICO claims for the purpose of ... extracting a coercive settlement due to the in terrorem nature of labeling someone as a racketeer” — follows an “unvarying practice” of “stay[ing] all discovery in the case until the defendants have had an opportunity to move to dismiss the RICO claims and the Court has decided the motion.” Major, Lindsey & Afr., LLC v. Mahn, 2010 WL 3959609, at *6-7 (S.D.NY. Sept. 7, 2010).! Nor are the federal courts alone in this sentiment. Ohio courts likewise agree that a stay of discovery pending resolution ofa motion to dismiss is justified where well-settled legal principles likely foreclose the plaintiff's claims. See e.g., Henderson v. Synenberg, 2014-Ohio-4089, {{] 19- 20 (8th Dist.) (“The conclusory nature of Henderson’s allegations coupled with the assertion of immunity were enough to justify the court’s decision to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.”) 3. Plaintiff's Threadbare Ohio RICO Claim Does Not Warrant Discovery Before The Court Determines That It Should Survive. In its motion for judgment, ADC cited multiple defects in Plaintiff's OCPA claim with extensive Ohio and federal case law support for its arguments, including: (1) that because her alleged underlying criminal claims failed, Plaintiff had failed to allege any “pattern” of corrupt 1 See also Guajardo v. Martinez, 2015 WL 12831683, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2015) (staying discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss where plaintiff's “complex claims under civil RICO” justified defendants’ concerns over burdensome and expensive discovery); New Mexico Oncology & Hematology Consultants. Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 2013 WL 12304061, at *1-2 (D.N.M. July 11, 2013) (discovery stayed pending solution of RICO and antitrust claims given that “substantial and expensive discovery” could be avoided if dispositive motion were granted); Barbieri v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2012 WL 3096701, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2012) (denying motion for expedited discovery and granting a motion to stay discovery where plaintiff was permitted to amend its complaint to add RICO claims); Van Beek v. Ag-Credit Bonus Partners, 2006 WL 8445799, at *1-2 (D. Idaho July 21, 2006) (granting stay of discovery pending decision on motion to dismiss in RICO action). 6 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N5 activity; (2) Plaintiff had failed to identify any “enterprise” that was distinct from the three “person” Defendants joined together; (3) Plaintiff had expressly alleged that the LAZ defendants had acted as ADC’s agents, even though “an organization cannot join with its own members to do that which it normally does and thereby form an [OCPA] enterprise separate and apart from itself”; and (4) Plaintiff had failed to allege that ADC conducted or participated in the non-existent enterprise’s affairs, as opposed to its own affairs. Plaintiff responded primarily by declaring her OCPA allegations sufficient because she says they are. She suggested the Court could infer a “pattern” of corrupt activity by assuming ADC must have engaged in the same alleged acts toward other non-paying trespassers — even though she failed to adequately allege any criminal conduct on ADC’s part at all (whether directed at her or anyone else). Further, she cited no law in rejoinder to ADC’s detailed arguments about her failure to allege any “enterprise” under R.C. 2923.31(C). ADC “should not be put to the expense [or trouble] of big-case discovery on the basis of” so “threadbare” an OCPA claim Limestone, 520 F.3d at 803. B. Plaintiffs Response In Opposition To ADC’s Motion Confirms That Each And Every One Of Her Claims May Be Resolved As A Matter Of Law Without Discovery. For her other eight causes of action, Plaintiff followed the same pattern. Rather than direct the Court to any caselaw rebutting ADC’s reliance on State v. Hope, 9 Ohio App. 3d 65 (8th Dist. 1983), as precluding Plaintiff's theft of vehicle claim, she argued that the Hope court “reached the right result for the wrong reasons.” Instead of explaining why the Court should not follow Canterbury v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, 2001 WL 1681132 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2001) and McGee vy. East Ohio Gas Co., 111 F. Supp.2d 979 (S.D. Ohio 2000) in resolving her extortion, theft of US. Demolition & Contracting. Inc. v. O'Rourke Constr. Co., 94 Ohio App. 3d 75, 85 (8th Dist. 1994). 7 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N5 money, and coercion claims, Plaintiff misrepresented the cases. And in lieu of addressing the fact that she had not identified two or more separate parties capable of conspiring or engaging in complicity with one another, Plaintiff ignored the issue. No amount of discovery is necessary for this Court to determine whether any of Plaintiff’s claims should survive ADC’s motion for judgment. Thomson, 2010-Ohio-416 at § 32; Wiles, 2013-Ohio-3625 at § 44; White, 2019-Ohio-1078 at § 15. Even Plaintiff’s assertion that ADC’s remedies to defend its property are “limited” to establishing a private tow-away zone or requesting that law enforcement cite Plaintiff can be resolved as a matter of law, since neither of the two statutes she cites for that argument say anything of the sort. See R.C. 4511.681; R.C. 4513.601 Til. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court should grant ADC’s Motion and enter an order staying all discovery until disposition of ADC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marion H. Little, Jr. Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679) ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP 41 S. High Street, Suite 3500 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel.: (614) 365-9900 Fax: (614) 365-7900 little@litohio.com Counsel for Defendant Arena District CA I, LLC Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2023 Sep 15 5:08 PM-23CV004469 0G546 - N5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was filed electronically on September 15, 2023, in accordance with the Court’s Electronic Filing Guidelines. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s Electronic Filing System. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s Filing System /s/ Marion H. Little, Jr. Marion H. Little, Jr. (0042679) 1009884