Response to motion to expedite

Page 1

IN THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF OHIO ex rel. OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE DeWINE, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees vs. PRECOURT SPORTS VENTURES, LLC, et al. Defendants-Appellants

: : : : : : : : : : : :

Case No 18-AP-000342 Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2018 CV 001864 Accelerated Calendar

RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES STATE OF OHIO AND CITY OF COLUMBUS TO MOTION TO EXPEDITE For the first time, on appeal Defendants-Appellants are in a hurry. Although they claim here that “justice delayed is justice denied,” Expedition Motion at 4, they have sought extensions for virtually every pleading they have had to file in the court below. See Consent to Plead or Otherwise Move, filed, April 2, 2017; Unopposed Motion For Additional time To File Their Response to Plaintiff State Of Ohio’s Motion to Compel, filed, May 4, 2018; Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to State of Ohio’s Motion to Toll, filed, May 4,


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.