govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-2_23-cv-03012-3

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
RIDGE CORPORATION, : 
 :   
                       Plaintiff, :  Case No. 2:23-cv-03012 
                        :             
            v. :  Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley 
            :   
KIRK NATIONAL LEASE CO., et al., :  Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson 
  :   
 : 
                        Defendants. : 
 
ORDER  
This matter comes before the Court on:  (1 ) Plaintiffs’ second Motion for a Temporary 
Restraining Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 108); and (2 ) Defendant Altum LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, 
filed on November 27, 2023 (ECF N o. 85). After this Court grante d Plaintiff Ri dge’s initial 
requests for a TRO and a Prelimin ary Injunction (“PI”) (ECF Nos. 14, 77), Defendants appealed 
to the Federal Circuit (ECF No. 78).  Because of the pending appeal, this Court held in abeyance 
Defendants’ substantive motion to dismiss.  (ECF No. 87 (discussing ECF No. 85)).  The Federal 
Circuit has since vacated and remanded this Court’s imposition of a PI on standing grounds (ECF 
No. 94), and Plaintiffs Ridge and Cold Chain have now sought a renewed PI and a second TRO 
(ECF Nos. 107, 108).  Altum has opposed the request for a TRO.  (ECF No. 111). 
This Court held a Rule 65.1 Conference on Plai ntiffs’ second Motion for a TRO.  (ECF 
No. 109).  During that Conference,  the undersigned explained that while Plaintiffs demonstrated 
that the harm they fear would be  irreparable should it occur, Plai ntiffs have not, at this time, 
established a threat of immediate harm based on  the lack of evidence of actions taken by any 
Defendant in pursuit of the manufacturing, selling, or marketing of the allegedly patented door at 
issue here.  Plaintiffs have therefore not satis fied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 
Case: 2:23-cv-03012-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 112 Filed: 09/06/24 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
2 
 
Procedure 65(b).  For this reason, as elaborated in the record of that Conference, Plaintiffs’ Motion 
(ECF No. 108) is DENIED. 
Further, in its Motion to Dismiss, Altum argues  that this case should be dismissed in part 
because Cold Chain is a necessary party who has not been added to this litigation.  ( See ECF No. 
85).  While this argument was mooted by the addition of Cold Chain as a plaintiff (ECF No. 106), 
the Motion as a whole is not necessarily moot:  “[D]istrict courts may exercise their discretion and 
apply a pending motion to dismiss to portions of an amended complaint that are ‘substantially 
identical to the original complaint.’”  Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 759 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting 
Mandali v. Clark , No. 2:13-cv-1210, 2014 WL 5089423, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2014)).  But 
while some of Altum’s arguments appear to a pply with equal force to Plaintiffs’ Amended 
Complaint, the same is not true for all of the arguments.  Out of an ab undance of caution then, 
Altum should have an opportunity  to update its dismissal reque st in light of the Amended 
Complaint.  Therefore, Altum’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 85) is DENIED AS MOOT.  This 
denial should not be taken as a decree that Altu m must start from scratch with its argument or as 
an indication of this Court’s view of the merits of Altum’s request in a general sense.  Rather, 
Altum is uniquely situated to explain its arguments in support of dismissal to this Court, and such 
explanation has potentially changed. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
                                         
      A L G E N O N  L .  M A R B L E Y     
      CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
DATE:  September 6, 2024 
 
Case: 2:23-cv-03012-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 112 Filed: 09/06/24 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight