Free Consultation
216-373-0539
Honorable male judge ruling out a decision in a civil family case, striking gavel to close hearing.
In the News /
02/24/2025

Plaintiffs Ask Judge Holbrook to Deny State’s Motion for Stay and Enforce His February 12 Ruling Ordering Governor Dewine to Rejoin FPUC Program and Secure $900,000,000 in Federal Benefits

kenichi
Share to Social

Hearing is critical juncture in the battle to secure benefits owed to 300,000 Ohioans

In a hearing scheduled for 1:30 PM today in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, the attorneys who represent thousands of Ohioans unjustly denied nearly $1 billion in Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits by the state will ask Judge Michael Holbrook to deny the state’s motion to stay his February 12 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and order Governor Mike DeWine to immediately take steps to reinstate Ohio’s participation in the FPUC program. The motion, filed by DannLaw and Zimmerman Law Offices may be viewed and downloaded here.

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why the state continues to fight a battle it lost decisively in both the trial and appellate court,” Marc Dann said. “The governor’s stated reason for pulling out of the program, that the benefits would serve as a disincentive for people to rejoin the workforce, was specious when he asserted it in 2021 and no longer exists in 2025.”

“There is absolutely no legal or policy reason why nearly $1 billion in federal funds should be sitting dormant in an account in Washington, D.C. when they could and should be flowing into the hands of Ohio families and fueling this state’s economy,” Dann continued. “Our motion asks Judge Holbrook to end the state’s defiance of his order as well as the delaying tactics that put the funds at risk of being repurposed by Congress and the Trump administration.”

In the motion, the legal team asserts that state and federal law governing the unemployment system trump the state’s right to a stay under Ohio’s Civil Rules of procedure:

Ohioans’ right to those benefits are created, defined, and regulated by statute–both federal and state. And as set forth in R.C. 4141.28(I), part of that right is to receive payment of employment compensation benefits promptly after a court renders a determination of entitlement to those benefits.

In its Order And Entry, this Court stated: “There is no question that plaintiffs were eligible

for FPUC benefits at the time defendants terminated its FPUC termination [sic].” Order And Entry, p. 10. The Court went on to state “there is also no question of fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus restoring Ohio’s participation in the FPUC program and resulting benefits as a matter of law.” Id., p. 11. In other words, this Court’s Order and Entry constitutes a determination that Plaintiffs were entitled to receive the available FPUC benefits after the State withdrew from the program.

 Pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(I), the State is under an affirmative statutory duty to immediately

pay those benefits notwithstanding its appeal. The State cannot rely on a Civil Rule of Procedure to curtail Plaintiffs’ substantive statutory right to prompt payment.

According to Dann if Judge Holbrook grants the state’s motion for a stay of his February 12 order the plaintiffs will immediately appeal to the Tenth District. DannLaw and Zimmerman filed a motion in the same court last week asking them to order the Governor to rejoin FPUC and secure the funds by a date certain in order to preserve the validity of the appeal. That motion is pending.   “As we’ve said repeatedly, time is of the essence. It would be unconscionable for the state to allow the money owed to 300,000 of this state’s citizens to vanish into the black hole of the federal budget. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that does not happen,” Dann concluded.

Feel free to reach out and speak with our experienced team of professionals who are here to provide you with guidance.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.
KNOW YOUR OPTIONS.
© 2026 DANNLAW. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute a client relationship.