JOHN EWALT, STEVE WYLIE, and BONNIE NAVARRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., dba The Columbus Dispatch - Articles

All Content

JOHN EWALT, STEVE WYLIE, and BONNIE NAVARRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., dba The Columbus Dispatch

Posted by: David Lazar on May 22, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Todd H. Neuman, Rick L. Ashton, Jeffrey R. Corcoran, ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Lynn, Rowe Larsen, Daniel H. Bryan, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, James D. Abrams, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): WATSON

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

READLER, Circuit Judge. As the district court aptly observed, this case has proceeded as a metaphorical “ping pong” ball, bouncing between Ohio’s federal and state courts. The latest iteration has the case back in federal court, but only because the district court agreed to equitably toll the 30-day deadline for removing the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Helpfully for us, the Supreme Court recently addressed the viability of equitable tolling in the removal context. Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel ex rel. Michigan, 146 S. Ct. 1074 (2026). But unhelpfully for defendant GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, the Supreme Court held that § 1446(b)(1)’s 30- day deadline cannot be equitably tolled. See id. at 1086. Because Enbridge forecloses GateHouse’s equitable tolling argument, and because there is no other basis for authorizing GateHouse’s otherwise untimely removal, we reverse the district court’s judgment with instructions to again remand the case to state court.

Attachments: