Hora v Perry Township et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
FRANK J. HORA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:22-cv-326
vs.
PERRY TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THE
AUGUST 12, 2026 ORDER (Doc. No. 79); (2) STAYING EXECUTION OF THE AUGUST
12, 2026 ORDER (Doc. No. 77) PENDING APPEAL; AND (3) LIFTING THE
CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL ORDER (Doc. No. 77)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ timely motion, made through counsel, for
a stay of this Court’s August 21, 2026 Order (Doc. No. 77), pending appeal. Doc. No. 79.
Defendants responded and indicated that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Doc. No.
82. In the August 21, 2026 Order, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the United States Magistrate Judge, which concluded, among other things, that an enforceable
settlement agreement exists between the parties. Doc. No. 69. Accordingly, the Court
conditionally dismissed the case. Doc. No. 77. Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal
on September 9, 2026. Doc. No. 78.
The Court recognizes that, at this juncture, execution of a settlement agreement between
the parties would render Plaintiffs’ pending appeal moot. Given this, and the absence of any
opposition by Defendants, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Doc. No. 79.
Accordingly, the execution of the August 12, 2026 Order is hereby STAYED pending the outcome
of Plaintiffs’ appeal. The Conditional Dismissal Order, likewise, is LIFTED.
Case: 3:22-cv-00326-MJN-PBS Doc #: 83 Filed: 10/09/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 9, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:22-cv-00326-MJN-PBS Doc #: 83 Filed: 10/09/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>