Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 1 of 15 PAGEID #: 2349

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY HARSMAN, et al., : Case No. 1:21-cv-597

Plaintiffs, :
: Judge Timothy S. Black
vs. :
:
CINCINNATI CHILDREN’S :
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al., :
Defendants. :

ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

FOR SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEY FEES AND
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ motions for sanctions and attorney

fees (Docs. 56, 59-61, 78, 79), and the parties’ responsive memoranda (Docs. 64, 68, 70,

71, 73, 80-84).

I. BACKGROUND

This Court has previously discussed the factual background of this case. (Doc. 48

at 2-4). In short, Plaintiffs presumably are (or were) employees of Defendants.

Defendants are the five major healthcare systems in the Cincinnati area: Christ Hospital,

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Mercy Health, TriHealth, and UC Health (collectively,

the “Ohio Defendants” or “Defendants”). Plaintiffs brought this action, opposing

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine policies.

Setting the factual background aside, however, this Order is focused solely on the

tortuous procedural history instigated by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Deters Law and “the owner

of Deters Law,” Glenn Feagan (collectively, “Deters Law”). See Beckerich v. St.
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 2 of 15 PAGEID #: 2350

Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-576 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2021), Doc. 17 at 10:17.

Between August 23 and 25, 2021, Deters Law filed seven class action lawsuits in

state and federal court. 1 Specifically, Deters Law filed one lawsuit in the Southern

District of Ohio, asserting one antitrust claim against St. Elizabeth Medical Center (“St.

Elizabeth”) and the Ohio Defendants. Another lawsuit, brought against St. Elizabeth

only, was filed in Kentucky state court, though it was later removed to federal court in the

Eastern District of Kentucky. And the remaining five lawsuits were brought against each

of the Ohio Defendants individually, and were filed in Ohio state court, though three

were later removed to federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. 2

In all seven of these the lawsuits, Deters Law moved for a restraining order,

seeking to stop the Ohio Defendants’ and St. Elizabeth’s COVID-19 vaccine policies

from going into effect. However, on August 29, 2021, after receiving an unfavorable

ruling in one of the state cases, Deters Law voluntarily dismissed all seven lawsuits. 3

1
The Court notes that Mr. Feagan is on all the pleadings of the Ohio cases, both state and
federal. But Mr. Feagan does not appear to be admitted to the Kentucky State Bar, and is not on
the pleadings of any Kentucky cases. Rather, the Kentucky cases were filed by Anthony Romeo
of Deters Law. The Court reiterates, however, that Mr. Feagan is the owner of Deters Law.
2
The seven lawsuits include: Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-548 (S.D.
Ohio filed Aug. 25, 2021); Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-100 (E.D. Ky.
removed Aug. 24, 2021); Aldridge v. Mercy Health Cincinnati, LLC, No. A2102965 (Hamilton
Cnty. C.P. filed Aug. 23, 2021); Alexander v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 1:21-
cv-545 (S.D. Ohio removed Aug. 25, 2021); Allen v. TriHealth, Inc., No. A2102964 (Hamilton
Cnty. C.P. filed Aug. 23, 2021); Durrough v. Christ Hosp., No. 1:21-cv-549 (S.D. Ohio removed
Aug. 26, 2021); and Bezier v. UC Health, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-551 (S.D. Ohio removed Aug. 25,
2021).
3
Entry Denying Pls.’ Mot. Temp. Restraining Order, Aldridge, No. A2102965 (Hamilton Cnty.
C.P. Aug. 27, 2021).

2
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 3 of 15 PAGEID #: 2351

On September 3, 2021, Deters Law resumed its litigations against the Ohio

Defendants and St. Elizabeth by filing two more lawsuits, this time in federal court

exclusively. Deters Law filed one class action suit in the Eastern District of Kentucky

against St. Elizabeth (the “EDKY case”). 4 And Deters Law filed another class action suit

in the Southern District of Ohio (the “OHSD case”), combining all claims against the

Ohio Defendants, as well as its antitrust claim against Saint Elizabeth. 5 In both cases,

Deters Law once again moved for emergency relief, seeking to stop any COVID-19

vaccine policies from going into effect. The EDKY case was randomly assigned to the

Honorable David L. Bunning; the OHSD case was randomly assigned to the undersigned.

Deters Law proceeded in the EDKY case, litigating their motion for temporary

restraining order without interruption. Ultimately, on September 24, 2021, Judge

Bunning issued a well-reasoned order denying Plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief in

the EDKY case against St. Elizabeth. Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 563 F. Supp.

3d 633, 637 (E.D. Ky. 2021), reconsideration denied, No. 2:21-cv-105-DLB-EBA, 2021

WL 4722915 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2021).

The proceedings in the OHSD case, however, did not progress so seamlessly.

Rather, in the OHSD case, on September 10, 2021, pursuant to Local Rule 65, the

Court held an informal teleconference with the parties to set an expedited briefing

schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary

4
Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00105 (E.D. Ky. filed Sept. 3, 2021).
5
Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00576 (S.D. Ohio filed Sept. 3, 2021).

3
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 4 of 15 PAGEID #: 2352

injunction. 6 After an expedited briefing schedule was established, Deters Law requested

a hearing to present expert testimony. This Court indicated that, given the emergent

nature of the Plaintiffs’ request, the Court would determine the necessity for a hearing

after briefing. In the interim, however, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to supplement their

motion, in order to file any supporting evidence. But Deters Law was unhappy with this

Court’s decision. Deters Law was also unhappy that the OHSD case was randomly

assigned to this Judge. 7 So, later that same day, Deters Law voluntarily dismissed the

OHSD case.

But Deters Law was not done.

On September 14, 2021, Deters Law refiled their combined class action against the

Ohio Defendants in state court, but dropped the antitrust claim and St. Elizabeth from the

complaint. Unsurprisingly, the Ohio Defendants removed the case to federal court.

Again, the case—i.e., now the present case—was randomly assigned to the undersigned.

The Court, again, set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court, again, provided

Plaintiffs an opportunity to file additional supporting evidence.

Although Deters Law initially challenged the case’s removal to federal court,

Deters Law ultimately abandoned that challenge and elected to proceed before this Judge.

On September 30, 2021, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction. (Doc. 48).

6
Transcript of Proceedings, Beckerich, No. 1:21-cv-00576 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2021), Doc. 17.
7
See Eric Deters, The Bulldog Show, Bulldog Show 1 | September 13, 2021, YouTube (Sep. 13,
2021), https://youtu.be/Orxmwq2b5mk?t=570.

4
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 5 of 15 PAGEID #: 2353

After this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants filed motions to dismiss and

motions for sanctions. On January 27, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the complaint,

stating that they, “in essence,” received a ruling on their case via the Supreme Court’s

ruling in Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647, 211 L.Ed.2d 433 (2022). (Docs. 75, 76). 8

The Court construed Plaintiffs’ motion as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 77). However, the Court explicitly retained jurisdiction over the

pending motions for sanctions, which jurisdiction now includes additional motions for

attorney fees. (Docs. 56, 59-61, 78, 79).

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) details a party’s obligation when presenting the court with a

pleading, written motion, or other paper. By signing a paper presented to the Court, an

attorney certifies that “it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to

harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(b)(1). Once the Court determines Rule 11(b) was violated, after notice and a

reasonable opportunity to respond, “the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any

attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly

responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.” Id.

8
Pursuant to that Order granting Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss (Doc. 77), all motions (Docs. 21,
49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57) except those related to sanctions or fees shall be terminated as moot.

5
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 6 of 15 PAGEID #: 2354

Any sanctions imposed “must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the

conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).

“The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court;

or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing

payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses

directly resulting from the violation.” Id. “[A]lthough it is clear that Rule 11 is not

intended to be a compensatory mechanism in the first instance, it is equally clear that

effective deterrence sometimes requires compensating the victim for attorney fees arising

from abusive litigation.” Rentz v. Dynasty Apparel Indus., Inc., 556 F.3d 389, 400 (6th

Cir. 2009).

B. 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1927, any attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in

any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally

the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such

conduct.” “[Section] 1927 sanctions require a showing of something less than subjective

bad faith, but something more than negligence or incompetence.” Red Carpet Studios

Div. of Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642, 646 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation

omitted). Sanctions under this section are warranted when an attorney objectively “falls

short of the obligations owed by a member of the bar to the court and which, as a result,

causes additional expense to the opposing party.” Rentz, 556 F.3d at 396. “[A]n attorney

is sanctionable when he intentionally abuses the judicial process or knowingly disregards

the risk that his actions will needlessly multiply proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted).

6
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 7 of 15 PAGEID #: 2355

“[S]anctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 may be imposed only on individual attorneys, and

not law firms.” BDT Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 742, 757 (6th Cir. 2010).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants seek sanctions and attorney fees against Deters Law and Mr. Feagan,

individually. 9 (Docs. 56, 59-61, 78, 79). Defendants mainly argue that sanctions and

fees are warranted because: (1) Deters Law and Mr. Feagan engaged in abusive litigation

tactics, including forum- and judge-shopping; and (2) Deters Law and Mr. Feagan filed a

frivolous, meritless, and harassing complaint lacking in any legal or factual support.

In response, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan argue that sanctions should not issue

because: (1) they conducted a reasonable investigation before filing; (2) their claims were

not meritless; and (3) the litigation was not motivated to harass Defendants. (Docs. 64,

82). Mr. Feagan and Deters Law rely, in large part, on Judge Bunning’s order denying

sanctions in the EDKY case. See Beckerich v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., No. 2:21-cv-105,

2022 WL 325453 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2022).10

9
The Court continues to include Mr. Feagan by reference to Deters Law but, for purposes of the
Analysis, will also reference Mr. Feagan individually since § 1927 sanctions may only be
imposed against an individual attorney.
10
Although Judge Bunning declined to sanction Deters Law in the EDKY case, the procedural
background of the EDKY case is entirely distinguishable from the present case. Specifically,
Deters Law voluntarily dismissed only one case against St. Elizabeth in the Eastern District of
Kentucky (which case was removed to federal court), before refiling the case about a week later
and proceeding without delay. Conversely, prior to proceeding in the present case, Deters
Law and Mr. Feagan voluntarily dismissed seven cases against the Ohio Defendants,
including five cases in this federal court (three of which were removed). Deters Law
further publicly confessed that dismissal of the OHSD case was for the purpose of judge
shopping.

7
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 8 of 15 PAGEID #: 2356

At the outset, this Court definitively states that it declines to consider sanctioning

Deters Law or Mr. Feagan for reasons relating to their investigation before filing, the

merits of any claim, or harassment. Indeed, consideration of such sanctions is not

necessary when, as here, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan have demonstrated a far more

fundamental cause warranting sanctions.

That is, the Court finds sanctions must issue against Deters Law and Mr.

Feagan pursuant to Rule 11, and against Mr. Feagan individually pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927, based solely on their abuse of the judicial system through their strategic

dismissal and re-filing of claims to thwart potentially unfavorable rulings by

engaging in confessed judge shopping. 11 Deters Law and Mr. Feagan have neither

denied such conduct, nor offered any justification for it. Their improper practices

created needless delay, effort, and expense for the opposing parties and the Court.

Such conduct undermines the judicial system as a whole and must be deterred.

Specifically, over the course of three days, beginning on August 23, 2021, Deters

Law filed seven complaints and motions for emergency relief, six of which were filed by

Mr. Feagan on behalf of Deters Law (see fn. 2, supra), and all of which were prompted,

at their core, by the same issue—Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine policies. 12 In other

11
The Court does not sanction counsel-of-record, Alan Statman. Mr. Statman has not signed any
pleadings or motions in this case. Mr. Statman was a retained “trial attorney” and “not part of
Deters Law.” Transcript of Proceedings, Beckerich, No. 1:21-cv-00576 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16,
2021), Doc. 17 at 9:24-10:1.
12
The Court recognizes that, in different iterations of their complaints, Deters Law and Mr.
Feagan modified some of their causes of action. But the underlying relief sought in all their
causes was effectively the same: to stop Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccine policies from going
into effect.

8
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 9 of 15 PAGEID #: 2357

words, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan sought the same relief, arising from effectively the

same alleged violations, against the same entities, and yet Deters Law and Mr. Feagan

deliberately brought these suits in separate filings, across three different state and federal

courts. Deters Law and Mr. Feagan then subsequently dismissed those seven suits after

receiving an unfavorable ruling in one of the Ohio state court cases.

But these dismissals were yet another strategic decision, made for improper

purposes. Because, just days later, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan once again refiled these

claims—this time electing not to do so in the state court that previously ruled against

them. Rather, Deters Law filed their effectively redundant actions in federal court—the

EDKY case and the OHSD case. Deters Law litigated the EDKY case, but Deters Law

and Mr. Feagan elected to once again dismiss the OHSD case. And again, this dismissal

was prompted by Deters Law and Mr. Feagan’s intent to manipulate the outcome of the

proceedings. Indeed, as this Court noted in a prior Order, Eric Deters himself

confessed publicly that dismissing the OHSD case was done for the express purpose

of ‘judge-shopping’—i.e., refiling a suit in hopes that, upon refiling, the case will be

randomly assigned to a different judge, who the litigant believes will be more likely

to give them a favorable outcome. 13

13
Eric Deters, who is “permanently retired” from practicing law in Ohio and suspended for
disciplinary reasons from practicing law in Kentucky, is the office manager of Deters Law. See,
e.g., https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/08/10/eric-deters-pay-6-500-fine-ordered-
ohio-supreme-court/5555502001/.

9
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 10 of 15 PAGEID #: 2358

And, indeed, days later, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan once again filed their case,

this time electing to go back to state court and thereby avoiding having their case decided

by the undersigned. Of course, Defendants appropriately removed the case to federal

court, at which point Deters Law and Mr. Feagan found themselves before this Judge

once again. And, eventually, the case was voluntarily dismissed after their motion for a

temporary restraining order was denied.

In short, there is no question that Deters Law and Mr. Feagan knowingly

filed redundant cases across multiple forums. There is no question that Deters Law

and Mr. Feagan dismissed those cases to avoid further unfavorable outcomes, and

then refiled in different forums for the sole purpose of taking a second bite at the

apple. And there is no question that Deters Law and Mr. Feagan engaged in

confessed judge shopping. This conduct is unquestionably improper for any officer

of the court. 14 McGirr v. Rehme, 891 F.3d 603, 614 (6th Cir. 2018) (“There is a

fundamental public interest in ending [] abuse of the judicial system, in conserving

judicial resources, and in preventing further confusion and disruption in this litigation.”).

14
See, e.g., In re Fieger, 191 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 1999) (upholding sanctions against attorney who
filed thirteen lawsuits, then stated in press interviews that he dismissed twelve of the suits “so
that he could select the judge”); Tennessee v. Gibbons, No. 3:16-CV-00718, 2017 WL 4535947,
at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2017) (quotation omitted) (collecting cases) (criticizing “blatantly
expressed” judge shopping); Landau v. Viridian Energy PA LLC, 274 F. Supp. 3d 329, 339 (E.D.
Pa. 2017) (“The practice of judge-shopping raises serious questions of professional ethics and
undermines trust in the court’s impartiality. Some consequence should follow.”); Vaqueria Tres
Monjitas, Inc. v. Rivera Cubano, 341 F. Supp. 2d 69, 73 (D.P.R. 2004) (D.P.R. 2005) (imposing
sanctions and explaining that voluntary dismissals should not be used “as a vehicle for judge-
shopping”) (collecting cases from across jurisdictions).

10
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 11 of 15 PAGEID #: 2359

Thus, the Court finds that, in violation of Rule 11(b), Deters Law and Mr.

Feagan caused unnecessary delay and needlessly increased the cost of litigation. The

Court further finds that, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Mr. Feagan (at least)

knowingly disregarded the risk that his actions would needlessly and unreasonably

multiply the proceedings.

Additionally, the Court finds that Deters Law and Mr. Feagan received notice of

and had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct and the

requests for attorney fees. Deters Law and Mr. Feagan were sent Rule 11 letters, served

motions for sanctions, and served motions for attorneys’ fees and other reasonable

expenses objecting to their conduct. (E.g., Docs. 56-2, 56-3, 59-1, 61-3). This Court also

put Deters Law and Mr. Feagan on notice of concerns with their confessed judge

shopping and gamesmanship. (Doc. 48 at 13-14).

Yet, despite this notice and opportunity to be heard, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan

completely failed to respond to these allegations of misconduct. When responding to the

motions for sanctions and attorney fees, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan did not attempt

to justify their dismissals, did not attempt to justify their delay, and did not attempt

to justify their blatant judge shopping.

Thus, the Court finds that Deters Law and Mr. Feagan violated Rule 11(b), and

Mr. Feagan violated 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Deters Law and Mr. Feagan were given notice

and opportunity to be heard on the issue and failed to justify their actions. Sanctions

must issue.

11
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 12 of 15 PAGEID #: 2360

First, to protect this Court from Deters Law’s abuse of the judicial system through

its confessed judge shopping, and to stop Deters Law from engaging in similar behavior

in the future, the Court deems Deters Law a vexatious litigant and enjoins Deters Law

from filing or re-filing, in the Southern District of Ohio, any action that names the same

parties, arises from the same operative facts, and/or seeks the same relief as any ongoing

or voluntarily dismissed litigation, unless Deters Law accompanies its filings with a

certification from an attorney in good standing, who is licensed to practice in this Court,

and who has no affiliation with Deters Law, stating that the filing or re-filing of the suit is

not the product of forum- or judge-shopping and is not brought for any dilatory or

otherwise improper purposes. In the event that Deters Law files the case in state court

and the case is later removed to federal court in the Southern District of Ohio, Deters

Law will be required to file the aforementioned certification within seven (7) days of

removal. Failure to file certification in compliance with this Order will result in

immediate dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Second, Deters Law and Mr. Feagan, jointly and severally, shall be responsible for

paying the Ohio Defendants’ “reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly

resulting from” Deters Law and Mr. Feagan’s sanctionable conduct. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(c)(4); id. at 11(c)(1) (“[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held

jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee”). 15

15
Like Rule 11, an attorney sanctioned pursuant § 1927 may only be required to pay attorney
fees incurred “because of” the sanctionable conduct. Mr. Feagan’s sanctionable conduct is the
same under both Rule 11 and § 1927, so he alternatively owes these same fees under § 1927.

12
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 13 of 15 PAGEID #: 2361

As a result of Deters Law and Mr. Feagan’s gamesmanship, the Ohio Defendants

needlessly prepared to litigate seven cases before the instant action. Therefore, the

Court finds the following attorney fees and costs were a direct result of the violation of

Rule 11: (1) any fees and costs incurred from and relating to the motions for sanctions

and attorney fees; and (2) any fees and costs incurred prior to the filing of the complaint

in the present action (i.e., fees and costs incurred between August 23, 2021 and

September 14, 2021). 16 To ensure an accurate computation, the Court reserves ruling on

the specific amount of attorney fees, and any modification thereof, subject to the steps

detailed in the conclusion, infra.

The Court reiterates that the sanctions issued against Deters Law and Mr. Feagan

are not based on their investigation before filing or any perceived merit to the claims.

The Court sanctions Deters Law and Mr. Feagan because they needlessly delayed,

unreasonably multiplied, and increased the costs of the proceedings. This Court

cannot, and will not, condone Deters Law and Mr. Feagan’s gamesmanship, delay

tactics, and publicly confessed judge shopping.

Accordingly, sanctions must issue.

16
By permitting fees and costs arising out of the voluntarily dismissed action (i.e., fees incurred
between August 23, 2021 and September 14, 2021), the Court specifically tailors this sanction to
address Deters Law and Mr. Feagan’s improper procedural antics. However, the Court will not
grant attorney fees and costs relating to the substantive litigation of the present case. As this
Court has previously noted, the Court is not punishing Deters Law and Mr. Feagan for
litigating their substantive claim, regardless of the merits. The Court sanctions only Deters
Law and Mr. Feagan’s improper conduct and procedural abuse of the judicial system.

13
Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 14 of 15 PAGEID #: 2362

IV. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing:

1. The motions for sanctions and attorney fees (Docs. 56, 59, 60, 61, 78, 79)
are GRANTED.

2. Deters Law is deemed a VEXATIOUS litigant and is accordingly

ENJOINED from filing or re-filing, in the Southern District of Ohio, any
action that names the same parties, arises from the same operative facts,
and/or seeks the same relief as any ongoing or voluntarily dismissed
litigation, unless Deters Law accompanies its filings with a certification
from an attorney in good standing, who is licensed to practice in this Court,
and who has no affiliation with Deters Law, stating that the filing or re-
filing of the suit is not the product of forum- or judge-shopping and is not
brought for any dilatory or otherwise improper purposes. In the event that
Deters Law files the case in state court and the case is later removed to
federal court, Deters Law will be required to file the aforementioned
certification within seven (7) days of removal. Failure to file certification
in compliance with this Order will result in immediate dismissal of the case
with prejudice; and

3. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, each Ohio Defendant requesting
attorney fees and costs must submit -one
- affidavit from counsel, which
affidavit includes as attachments the following:

a. A summary total amount of:

i. Fees incurred from and related to motions for sanctions and

attorney fees;

ii. Costs incurred from and related to motions for sanctions and
attorney fees;

iii. Fees incurred prior to the filing of the complaint in the

present action (i.e., fees and costs incurred between August
23, 2021 and September 14, 2021);

iv. Costs incurred prior to the filing of the complaint in the

present action (i.e., fees and costs incurred between August
23, 2021 and September 14, 2021);

b. A chart providing the names of timekeepers, their qualifications,

and charged rate;

14
 Case: 1:21-cv-00597-TSB Doc #: 85 Filed: 09/20/22 Page: 15 of 15 PAGEID #: 2363

c. A detailed list of costs incurred; and

d. A detailed billing record of fees incurred sorted chronologically.

Upon receipt of the required affidavits, the Court will determine whether
the requested fees and costs are reasonable and order the payment of said
fees and costs accordingly. Failure to timely submit the required
documentation, as specifically instructed, shall result in that defendant’s
waiver of fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/20/2022 s/Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

15