MOTION DOCKET, 71 Ohio St.3d 1482 (1995)

646 N.E.2d 177-180Supreme Court of Ohio.
1995.

MOTION DOCKET Friday, February 24, 1995 93-2459. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio v. Hrenko. Cuyahoga County, No. 63907. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. On February 14, 1995, appellee filed a list of additional authorities pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(7). In that appellee’s document contains more than a list of citations to the authorities, it does not comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(7). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that appellee’s document be, and hereby is, stricken.

94-1669. Smith v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc. Hamilton County, No. C-940214. On February 10, 1995, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s January 11, 1995 denial of stay. There being no provision in the Supreme Court Rules of Practice permitting the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a denial of a motion for stay,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that appellant’s motion be, and is hereby, stricken.

94-2407. State ex rel. Optimum Technology, Inc. v. Fisher. In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court upon the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition. On February 17, 1995, respondent, Ohio Attorney General, filed a reply memorandum relating to respondent’s motion to dismiss. There being no provision in the Supreme Court Rules of Practice permitting the filing of reply memoranda,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that respondent’s reply memorandum be, and is hereby, stricken.

94-2420. DLZ Corp. v. Fisher. In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court upon the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition. On February 17, 1995, respondent, Ohio Attorney General, filed a reply memorandum relating to respondent’s motion to dismiss. There being no provision in the Supreme Court Rules of Practice permitting the filing of reply memoranda,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that respondent’s reply memorandum be, and is hereby, stricken.

95-54. State ex rel. Scott v. Wilkinson. In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court upon the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On February 14, 1995, relator filed a motion in opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss. Rule XIV(1)(C) of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court prohibits the filing of a response to a motion that is not timely tendered for filing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that relator’s motion in opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, stricken.

95-58. State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Council. Madison County, No. CA94-08-030. This cause is pending before this court as an appeal of right from the Court of Appeals for Madison County. On February 10, 1995, appellees filed a memorandum in response. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(1) provides that the parties shall brief an appeal of right in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that appellees’ memorandum in response be, and is hereby, stricken.

95-76. Cohen v. United Serv. Auto. Assn. Cuyahoga County, No. 67094. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal. On February 13, 1995, appellee filed a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum in response. Whereas there is no provision in the Supreme Court Rules of Practice permitting the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum in response, and S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(3)(B) prohibits the filing of requests for extension not permitted by the rules,

Page 1483

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective February 22, 1995, that appellee’s motion for extension of time be, and is hereby, stricken.

95-274. State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas. In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for order extending entry of February 10, 1995 to cover new case, Konold v. Star Bank, N.A., Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case No. A95-00513, and motion for leave to intervene by William A. Thurner et al., and motion for leave to intervene by Star Bank, N.A.,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions be, and the same hereby are, granted, effective February 22, 1995.

95-274. State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas. In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. On February 10, 1995, this court issued an alternative writ, stayed further proceedings in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, and denied relator’s request to vacate preliminary orders. On February 15, 1995, intervenors William A. Thurner, Howard Thiemann, and the Estate of Arthur Dohme (“intervenors”) filed a motion seeking clarification of the entry issued February 10, 1995. Intervenors request clarification that the action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas is stayed in precisely the same posture as it existed on February 10, 1995, and that the temporary restraining order issued therein shall not expire in accordance with its terms on February 16, 1995. In the alternative, intervenors move for a temporary injunction barring relator from drawing funds from intervenors’ letters of credit. Upon consideration of intervenors’ motion for clarification and alternative motion for temporary injunction,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, effective February 23, 1995, that intervenors’ motion for temporary injunction is granted, conditioned upon the filing of a bond, in the amount of one million dollars, in accordance with App.R. 7(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that intervenors notify this court if bond is posted as ordered above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the requisite bond is not posted, the motion for clarification and motion for temporary injunction are denied.

PFEIFER, J., would continue the stay.

COOK, J., would deny the motions.

95-342. State v. Reimsnyder. Erie County, No. E-93-71. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal and claimed appeals of right. Upon consideration of appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for stay of proceedings pending hearing to be conducted in the trial court on appellant/cross-appellee’s motion to dismiss,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and the same hereby is, granted, effective February 22, 1995.

WRIGHT and RESNICK, JJ., not participating.