From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
McCormick v. Franklin Cnty. Court of Common Pleas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Jul 28, 2020
Case No. 2:19-cv-03329 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 28, 2020)Copy Citation
Download
Treatment
Case No. 2:19-cv-03329
07-28-2020
MOSES MCCORMICK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC DIVISION, et al. Defendants.
Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more.
Learn more
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Jolson
OPINION & ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hsiu Chen-Lu's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. 146. The matter is fully briefed, and the Court will resolve the Motion without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion [#146].
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Moses and Mark McCormick filed a 256-page Complaint, alleging that several private parties, state courts, agencies, and their employees conspired against them in violation of their constitutional rights, in connection with Moses McCormick's divorce proceedings. Plaintiffs bring this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the federal RICO statute, codified at
18 U.S.C. § 1962. Many of Plaintiffs' allegations are difficult to follow, but with respect to Defendant Hsiu-Chen Lu, Plaintiffs raise the following claims:
The § 1983 claim does not apply to Defendant Lu.
Defendant Lu is Plaintiff Moses McCormick's ex or soon-to-be ex-wife. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Lu attempted to separate from Moses McCormick as a way to "personally immobilize him from public work," "deprive him of assets that would be due him under the provisions of state law," and limit his "visitation with his children." When Mr. McCormick refused to sign marriage dissolution papers, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Lu, in retaliation, filed a false complaint and committed perjury by stating Mr. McCormick "had an affair, was abusive and cruel, and neglected his [marital] dut[ies]." In addition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Lu acted in concert with state officials to thwart Mr. McCormick's civil lawsuit against her for concealing at least $300,000 worth of marital property. Plaintiffs also maintain that Defendant Lu "bribed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas directly and indirectly to gain favorable rulings, and to receive the rulings consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in the dissolution papers." Finally, Plaintiffs state that Defendant Lu's actions were "an attempt on the life of Plaintiff Moses McCormick due to him . . . being at 'high risk' for a stroke." This claim is apparently connected to Defendant Lu's act of cancelling Mr. McCormick's health insurance.
en.wikipedia.org
www.dailydot.com
