United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 30, 32]
S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Julie Chinnock asks the Court to reconsider its refusal to
remand this case to state court, arguing (once again) that
the case was improperly removed under 28 U.S.C. §
1441. She protests that the Court did not give
her sufficient time to file a reply brief and erred in
declining to remand the case.
Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff Chinnock's additional
arguments in her reply brief and motion to reconsider and
DENIES her motion to reconsider for the
reasons stated in its previous Order.
point requires further clarification. Plaintiff Chinnock
correctly points out that claims against multiple defendants
cannot be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy
requirement.But even if Plaintiff Chinnock argues that
each of the loans at issue are from different lenders, she
nonetheless seeks a remedy against Defendants Navient
Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC, with regard to all of
the alleged loans. As a result, her claims against those
defendants may be aggregated. And the Court may take
supplemental jurisdiction over her claims against the
parties have also filed a number of other motions.
Plaintiff Chinnock has filed two motions for summary
judgment. In light of the early stage of this
litigation, the Court will hold those motions in abeyance
until discovery has proceeded further.
Plaintiff Chinnock has informed the Court that she believes
that counsel for the Navient Defendants have engaged in
unauthorized practice of law. The Court sees no evidence of
unethical behavior on the part of the Navient Defendants'
counsel and DENIES what it construes as a
request for sanctions.
Plaintiff Chinnock filed a notice with the Court stating that
she has identified some or all of the John Doe defendants in
her complaint. The Court construes this as a motion to
amend the complaint and GRANTS that motion.
Chinnock should file any amended complaint naming additional
defendants within fourteen days of this Order. In light of
the potential for amendment, the Court will hold the Navient
Defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance.
Plaintiff Chinnock moves to strike some portions of the
Navient Defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing that they
are derogatory or incorrect. The Court DENIES
that motion. The statements Chinnock challenges essentially
reflect differing views of the facts of the case or confusion
about Plaintiff's arguments. Those are not reasons to
strike portions of the motion to dismiss.
the Court rejects Plaintiff Chinnock's claim that the
Electronic Filing System's (ECF) requirements elevate
substance over form, may chill legal practice or the rule of
law, or pose any threat to the administration of
justice. Resources to assist counsel in utilizing
the system are plentiful and attorneys throughout the country
have been able to utilize it without any discernable impact
on either the rule of law or their ability to effectively
represent their clients. Plaintiff's counsel's
preference for paper filing is not grounds for changing the
Court's rule nor is it evidence of any fundamental defect
in the ECF.
Plaintiff Chinnock requests that she and her counsel be
allowed to attend the July 25, 2018, case management
conference by telephone. The Court DENIES
those reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff
Chinnock's motion for leave to amend her complaint. Any
amendment to the complaint must be filed within fourteen days
of this Order. The Court will hold the Navient
Defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the
filing of an amended complaint.
Court DENIES Plaintiff Chinnock's motion
to reconsider the Court's denial of the earlier motion to
remand, her motion for sanctions, her motion to strike, and
her motion to appear by telephone. It will hold Plaintiff