I. ARGUMENT

In response to Neinast's Motion For Summary Judgment, Defendants incorporate all arguments they have made thus far as contained in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply In Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendants, therefore, seek to highligh only a few points in this Memorandum.

In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Neinast makes many factual arguments concerning whether other institutions require shoes or have the authority to require shoes. The authority and prerogative of those institutions, however, are not at issue in this case. The only issue involved here is whether O.R.C. § 3375.40(H) grants the Library the authority to enact a rule requiring its patrons wear shoes. The Defendants have adequately addressed that issue in the briefs filed with this Court to date.

As previously discussed, the Library's shoe requirement is valid so long as it is reasonable and not in clear conflict with the statutory intent of the legislation governing the subject matter. In re Appeal of Buckeye Power, Inc., 42 Ohio St. 2d, 508, 509, 330 N.E.2d 430, 430 (1975); Woodbridge Partners Group, Inc. v. Ohio Lottery Comm., 99 Ohio App. 3d 269, 273, 650 N.E.2d 498, 500-01 (Franklin Cty. 1994). Neinast's factual arguments regarding other institutions could only logically be related to whether the Library's shoe requirement is reasonable. The District Court and Sixth Circuit, however, have already made those determinations, including that the shoe requirment is reasonable, and Neinast is bound to the factual findings by res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Superior's Brand Meats, Inc. v. Lindley, 62 Ohio St. 2d 133 (1980).

The only remaining issue then is whether the shoe requirement is in clear conflict with the statutory intent of the legislation governing the subject matter. Since Neinast's factual arguments contained in his Motion For Summary Judgment do not pertain to that issue, they remain irrelevant. And as Defendants have demonstrated, the shoe requirement does not conflict with the legislative intent. As a result, the shoe requirement is valid.

CONCLUSION

For these reason and those cited in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply In Support of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment, Defendants respectfully request this Court to deny Neinast's Motion For Summary Judgment and grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment was served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon Robert A. Neinast, Plaintiff, 8617 Ashford Lane, Pickerington, Ohio 43147, this 16^th day of May, 2005.

Footnotes: