Narrative Opinion Summary
A complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition was filed in this court by relator Optimum Technology. The court considered Optimum's motion to clarify its previous order allowing William Cargile to intervene and, alternatively, to strike Cargile’s counterclaim and motion to quash or for protective order. The court ruled that the motion to strike the counterclaim would be treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Cargile is granted until February 6, 1995, to respond to this motion. Additionally, a conditional protective order was issued, temporarily staying depositions scheduled for February 2 and 3, 1995, pending the court's decision on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim.
Legal Issues Addressed
Intervention in Legal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the relator's motion seeking clarification on the order which allowed an individual to intervene in the proceedings.
Reasoning: The court considered Optimum's motion to clarify its previous order allowing William Cargile to intervene...
Issuance of Protective Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A conditional protective order was issued by the court to temporarily halt depositions until a decision on the jurisdictional motion was made.
Reasoning: Additionally, a conditional protective order was issued, temporarily staying depositions scheduled for February 2 and 3, 1995, pending the court's decision on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court treated a motion to strike a counterclaim as a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction, following procedural rules.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the motion to strike the counterclaim would be treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).