Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1:13-cv-00501 #55

1:13-cv-00501 #55

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 55 - Ohio Director of Health's Supplemental Answer to amended complaint
Doc 55 - Ohio Director of Health's Supplemental Answer to amended complaint

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Nov 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, M.D.,
Defendant. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:13-cv-00501 District Judge Timothy S. Black
DEFENDANT DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, M.D’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 33]
On November 1, 2013, this court denied Defendant Dr. Theodore E. Wymyslo’s motion to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Robert Grunn, (Doc. # 54). Accordingly, Defendant hereby supplements his answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as follows: 1.
 
Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff Robert Grunn is a funeral director. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief. 2.
 
Defendant states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Second Amended Complaint are legal conclusions for which no response is required. 3.
 
Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff Grunn signs death certificates as a funeral director as alleged in Paragraph 42 of the Second Amended Complaint. 4.
 
Defendant denies allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Second Amended Complaint for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief.
Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 55 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 838
 
2 5.
 
Defendant denies allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief. 6.
 
Defendant denies allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief. 7.
 
Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Second Amended Complaint are assertions for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 for want of knowledge sufficient to form a  belief. 8.
 
Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Second Amended Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 9.
 
Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Second Amended Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 and expressly denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. Answering further, Defendant denies that this Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Grunn’s claims. 10.
 
Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Second Amended Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 and expressly denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. Answering further, Defendant denies that Mr. Grunn has standing to represent the interests of unascertained future clients and further denies that this Court has  jurisdiction over Mr. Grunn’s claims. 11.
 
Defendant denies all allegations not expressly admitted or specified as not disputed.
Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 55 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 839
 
3 12.
 
Defendant expressly incorporates all responses and defenses set forth in his Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 39). WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Wymyslo submits that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL D
E
WINE Ohio Attorney General /s/
 Bridget E. Coontz
 BRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919)* *Lead and Trial Counsel ZACHERY P. KELLER (0086930) Assistant Attorney General Constitutional Offices Section 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Tel: (614) 466-2872; Fax: (614) 728-7592  bridget.coontz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov zachery.keller@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Counsel for Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D., Director of the Ohio Department of Health
Case: 1:13-cv-00501-TSB Doc #: 55 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 840

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->