Allen v. Board of Education The Sidney City School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JENNILLE LOVE ALLEN,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-101
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
THE SIDNEY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 17); (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
DOCKET PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (3) DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. No. 9); (4)
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY (Doc. No. 19); AND (5)
REFERRING THIS CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PETER B. SILVAIN, JR., IN HIS
ROLE AS MEDIATION COORDINATOR, TO ASSIGN THIS CASE TO THE
APPROPRIATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MEDIATION
______________________________________________________________________________
This is a civil case in which Plaintiff Jennille Love Allen, through counsel, alleges racial
and sexual discrimination, as well as retaliation, against Defendant, the Sidney, Ohio City School
District Board of Education. 	Doc. No. 1. 	Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings. 	Doc. No. 9. 	Plaintiff filed a response in which she
requested leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave
to file the amended complaint and attached the proposed amended complaint. 	Doc. No. 17.
Defendant has responded (Doc. No. 18) and filed a motion to stay the case pending a ruling on the
motion for leave (Doc. No. 19). The Court has carefully considered all of the foregoing, and the
motion for leave to amend, motion for judgment on the pleadings, and motion to stay are now ripe
for decision.
Case: 3:25-cv-00101-MJN-PBS Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Leave to amend must be “freely” given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
In light of Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, and after review of the attached
proposed complaint, the Court finds it would not be futile to allow its filing. Therefore, the Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which attacked Plaintiff’s
initial pleading, is DENIED AS MOOT. 	Additionally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Defendant’s motion to stay. 	Finally, this matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Peter B.
Silvain, Jr., in his role as mediation coordinator, to assign this case to the appropriate Magistrate
Judge for mediation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 26, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00101-MJN-PBS Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>