Delta Beverages Inc. et al. v. Canepa et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Delta Beverages, Inc., et al., 	Case No. 3:26-cv-1793
Plaintiffs,
v. 	ORDER
Jim Canepa, et al.,
Defendants.
On October 7, 2026, I granted the motion of the State of Ohio Defendants to stay the
preliminary injunction I previously entered in this case in light of the partial stay entered by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals of a substantially similar preliminary injunction in Titan Logistics Group,
LLC v. Tischler, No. 26-3648 (6th Cir.). (Doc. No. 69). Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
arguing the stay impermissibly modified the preliminary injunction beyond the limited scope of this
Court’s jurisdiction and that I failed to adequately weigh the irreparable harm they would suffer
from the stay. (Doc. No. 70).
Plaintiffs’ motion is not the run-of-the-mill motion for reconsideration, as I acknowledge I
granted the motion to stay one day after the State of Ohio Defendants filed the motion and before
Plaintiffs filed a brief in response to the motion. But, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs had
not yet weighed in, I concluded it was appropriate to move forward with a decision on the merits of
the motion to stay because Plaintiffs had offered a substantive response to the merits of the State of
Ohio Defendants’ substantially-similar motion to modify the preliminary injunction and the Sixth
Circuit’s clear directive as to the scope of the preliminary injunction in Titan Logistics.
Case: 3:26-cv-01793-JJH Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/14/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
While “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders,” Mallory v.
Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991), the bar for granting a motion for reconsideration is set
high. See, e.g., Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (citing Petition of U.S.
Steel Corp., 479 F.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 1973)) (“The major grounds justifying reconsideration of
interlocutory orders are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.”).
Like Plaintiffs, I respectfully maintain the view that enjoining only the in-state requirement
of Ohio Administrative Code § 3796:6-3-01(C) is an insufficient remedy, as there appears to be little
to no chance that the State of Ohio will adopt new regulations permitting out-of-state companies
from selling intoxicating hemp products in Ohio before those products become illegal under federal
law. But neither I nor Plaintiffs cannot dispute that the Sixth Circuit plainly believes otherwise.
Moreover, while Plaintiffs argue the partial stay alters the status quo between them and
Defendants as memorialized in the preliminary injunction order, any such “status quo” no longer
exists in the same legal realm as it did at the time of that order.1 The Sixth Circuit was unequivocal
in its conclusions that an identical preliminary injunction was overbroad and that that overbreadth
would cause the State of Ohio to suffer irreparable injury because it prohibited the state “from
enforcing its duly enacted laws.” Titan Logistics, No. 26-3648, Doc. No. 33 at 10. Thus, Plaintiffs
cannot establish that they will suffer irreparable harm from the partial stay because the Sixth Circuit
already has concluded that factor weighs in favor of, not against, a stay.
1 Further, I am not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that a stay of a preliminary injunction is
equivalent to a modification of that injunction. Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
plainly contemplates that a district court may issue a stay of a preliminary injunction even after an
enjoined party has filed a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c), (d).
Case: 3:26-cv-01793-JJH Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/14/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
I conclude Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show reconsideration is appropriate
and I deny their motion.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-01793-JJH Doc #: 72 Filed: 10/14/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>