their motion for summary judgment. We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for summary judgment for an abuse of discretion. Romstadt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir.1995). Ortiz v. Jordan, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 884, 889, 178 L.Ed.2d 703 (2011), precludes our consideration of most of the issues defendants raise with respect to their motions for summary judgment and to dismiss. But because Ortiz leaves open the possibility that cases “involving] ... [only] disputes about the substance and clarity of pre-existing law” may still be considered, Id. at 892, we briefly consider two legal arguments for summary judgment on the state law claims. See also Owatonna Clinic-Mayo Health Sys. v. Med. Protective Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., 639 F.3d 806, 809-10 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. North Pacific Ins.
holding that we will not review the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and judgment on the merits recognizing that ortiz did not address the issue of whether a denial of a summary judgment motion was appealable after a final judgment if the denial was based on a legal question rather than on the existence of material facts in issue holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable holding that we will not review under any standard the pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment after a full trial and final judgment on the merits holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity