Legal Document: NEW PERSPECTIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC Vs JOSE VILLAVICENCIO ET AL VS.JOSE VILLAVICENCIO

On February 02, 2024 a COMPLAINT FILED was filed for OTHER CIVIL in the District Court of Franklin County.

Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y2

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

New Perspective Asset Management, LLC,
Court-Appointed Receiver over certain real
property
c/o Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP
10 W. Broad St., Ste. 2400 Case No.
Columbus, OH 43215

and Judge

City of Columbus, Ohio
c/o Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney
375 S. High St., 17" Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Jose Villavicencio
669 South 22" Street
Columbus, Ohio 43205

Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATION OF VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR STATUS

Plaintiffs New Perspective Asset Management, LLC, the court-appointed receiver (the

“Receiver”) in various consolidated cases (the “Consolidated Cases”)! before the Franklin County

Municipal Court’s Environmental Division (the “Environmental Court’), and the City of

Columbus, Ohio (the “City” and, together with the Receiver, the “Plaintiffs”), for their Complaint

against Defendant Jose Villavicencio (the “Defendant”) state as follows:

| These cases consist of Case Nos. 2016 EVH 60013, 2021 EVH 60053, 2022 EVH 60082, 2022 EVH 60507, and
2022 EVH 60624 in the Environmental Case.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y¥30

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS

1 In the Consolidated Cases, the Receiver was appointed over sixteen different real

properties (the “Properties”) to abate the public nuisances thereon. See the Order Appointing

Receiver and Approving Rehabilitation Plan, filed in the Consolidated Cases on August 21, 2023

(the “Receiver Order”).

2 The document attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Receiver

Order.

3 The Properties are owned by several Ohio entities: Argous, LLC; JRV SEPIRA,

LLC; South German Village, LLC; and South German Village Medical Center LLC (the “Owner

Entities”).

4 The Defendant, in some way or other, claims a management or membership

position in each of those Owner Entities.

5 Since the Receiver’s appointment, the Defendant has worked to disrupt and

frustrate the receivership

6 The Defendant made eighteen separate filings in the Consolidated Cases over the

two and half months following the Receiver’s appointment. Many of these filings were never

served properly—many lacked a certificate of service, or were only filed in one of the Consolidated

Cases—such that the Receiver only discovered the filings by chance when reviewing the case

dockets for a different purpose

7 In the middle of these filings was a Notice of Appeal; the Defendant sought to

challenge the Receiver Order (among other things), and thus initiated an appeal before the Tenth

District Court of Appeals of Ohio (the “Appellate Court”). See Case No. 23-AP-552 (the “First

Appellate Case”).
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y¥31

8 Far from satisfied with that onslaught of paperwork, the Defendant then initiated

two additional civil cases before this Court, one against the City and its Code Enforcement

Division, see Case No. 23-CV-7918 (the “First Civil Case”), and another against the Receiver and

Environmental Court Judge Stephanie Mingo, see Case No. 23-CV-7986 (the “Second Civil

Case’).

9 In the Second Civil Case, the Defendant filed another four documents on top of his

complaint, one of which sought a preliminary injunction against the receivership

10. The Receiver has been forced to respond to the filings in this Second Civil Case, at

considerable and increasing cost to the receivership estate.

11 The First Appellate Case was dismissed due to the Defendant’s failure to prosecute

the case by filing his appellate brief.

12. Even after the First Appellate Case was dismissed, the Defendant still filed an

additional two documents in that case.

13. While the First Appellate Case was pending, the Defendant filed another appeal

See Case No. 23-AP-692 (the “Second Appellate Case”).

14. The Second Appellate Case was dismissed sua sponte by the Tenth District Court

of Appeals for lack of a timely appeal.

15. The Defendant has since sought to appeal the dismissal of the Second Appellate

Case to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

16. After the dismissal of the First Appellate Case and the Second Appellate Case, the

Defendant filed a third case before the Appellate Court, Case No. 23-AP-765 (the “Third Appellate

Case”)
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y¥3

17. The Third Appellate Case is captioned as an “Original Action — Writ of

Prohibition.”

18. Although the Third Appellate Case is captioned as being against the City, the body

of the filing indicates that the respondent is the “Franklin County Environmental Court” and

“Judge Stephanie Mingo.” And, although the Receiver was central to the facts outlined in the

filing, the Receiver was neither included nor served with it

19. The Defendant has since initiated a fourth action before the Appellate Court

challenging yet another order from the Environmental Court. See Case No. 24-AP-055 (the “Fourth

Appellate Case”).

20. Under Ohio law and the explicit terms of the Receiver Order, the filing of the First

and Second Civil Cases constituted a violation of the Barton Doctrine and the stay imposed in the

Consolidated Cases. See Receiver Order, § 10; Ettayem v. Ramsey, 2019-Ohio-675, J 14 (10th

Dist. Feb. 26, 2019) (“...[G]enerally, courts have held that a party may not file an action against a

receiver unless prior leave is obtained from the appointing court.”).

21 Even besides such clear-cut non-conformity with proper procedure in this case, and

his other less defensible efforts to disrupt the receivership, the Defendant has clearly engaged in

vexatious conduct by filing close to thirty documents, especially since these filings only reiterate

the same arguments over and over again

22. Further, part of the Defendant’s vexatious conduct constitutes the unauthorized

practice of law. The Environmental Court has already warned the Defendant of this, denying some

of his previous filings for this exact reason, and yet the Defendant has continued to purportedly

represent others and bring legal proceedings on their behalf to disrupt the receivership.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - ¥3

23. The Plaintiffs believe that these filings are meant to harass and distract the

Receiver, whittling away at the receivership’s funds and delaying the actual abatement of

nuisances at the Properties.

24. With this action, the Plaintiffs seek to have the Defendant declared a vexatious

litigator, such that he would be prevented from making further filings without prior leave from the

Court.

JURISDICTION

25 This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to R.C. §

2307.382 because he transacts business in this state

26. Under R.C. § 2323.52(B), a person who has defended against habitual and

persistent vexatious conduct may commence a civil action in a court of common pleas with

jurisdiction over the person who allegedly engaged in the habitual and persistent vexatious

conduct. Because this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, it also has subject-matter

jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to R.C. § 2323.52.

27. Venue is proper in this case pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 3(C), since Defendant

resides in Franklin County, Ohio.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Filings in the Consolidated Cases

28 The Receiver was appointed in the Consolidated Cases on August 21, 2023

29. The next day, on August 22, 2023, Defendant filed his Motion to Stay Order

Allowing Entry into Various Properties, untimely contesting the Environmental Court’s Order

Granting Motion for Authorization to Enter and Inspect Properties from a month earlier.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y¥34

30. The next day, on August 23, 2023, Defendant filed his Motion to Reconsider

Appointment of Receiver, purporting to file it on behalf of the Owner Entities as well as himself,

constituting the unauthorized practice of law.

31 Then—in only one of the Consolidated Cases,” and without any evidence of proper

service to the Receiver—Defendant proceeded to file eleven additional motions, objecting to the

actions of the Environmental Court, the City, and/or the Receiver:

a. the Objection to Decision to Strike Motion for Mistrial, filed on September
13, 2023:
the Objection to Receiver NPAM and NPAM Plans, filed on September 13,
2023;
the Motion to Censure City Attorney Christopher Clark, filed on September
13, 2023:
a Memorandum: Hole in Diverter, Cracks in Sidewalk Leads to
Receivership, filed on September 14, 2023;

the Motion to Change Prosecuting Attorney, filed on September 14, 2023;

the Motion to Stay/Terminate Receiver NPAM, filed on September 14, 2023;

his Notice of Appeal, filed on September 15, 2023, which acknowledged the
initiation of the First Appellate Case;

the Motion to Remove 463 South 22nd from Receivership, filed on October
5, 2023;
the Motion to Remove 377 Berkeley from Receivership, filed on October 5,
2023;

the Motion to Remove 669 South 22nd from Receivership, filed on October
6, 2023; and
the Motion to Remove 665 South 22nd from Receivership, filed on October
6, 2023.

? The Defendant only filed the eleven motions listed in { 20 of this Complaint in Case No. 2022 EVH 60624, as
opposed to filing the motions so that they would appear on the dockets of each of the Consolidated Cases.

6
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - ¥3

32. The first seven of those motions were filed over the course of three days, between

September 13 and September 15, 2023. These motions generally repeated the same allegations and

arguments, and the final four sought functionally the same relief yet were divided into distinct

motions that the Receiver would have to respond to.

33. Trying to keep up with this flood of filings, the Plaintiffs filed a Joint (1)

Consolidated Response of City of Columbus, Ohio, and Receiver to Various Filings by Jose

Villavicencio; (2) Motion to Strike; and (3) Request for Hearing on Remaining Matters (the “Joint

Response”) on October 17, 2023

34. While the Joint Response did seek to strike certain of the Defendant’s filings based

on mootness or procedural deficiencies, the Plaintiffs also sought to find a middle-ground: given

the Defendant’s grievances with the receivership, and the filings requesting the removal of certain

properties from the receivership (presumably for compliance with City Code), the Joint Response

requested a hearing where the Defendant’s issues could be resolved before the Court. The Joint

Response also expressed trepidation at how to proceed in responding to the Defendant’s motions,

given the initiation of the First Appellate Case.

35. The Joint Response, however, did little to deter the Defendant’s filings. Three more

motions were filed on October 19, 2023, two days later

a. the Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment,

b the Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, and

the Motion to Add New Party, seeking to add Brian Gearheart to the
Consolidated Cases.

36. The Defendant responded to the Joint Response directly on October 23, 2023, by

filing his Memorandum Contra to Joint (1) Consolidated Response of City of Columbus and
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - ¥3

Receiver to Various Filings by Jose Villavicencio; (2) Motion to Strike, and (3) Request for

Hearing on Remaining Matters.

37. A week later on October 30, 2023, Defendant also filed a Motion to Compel the

Receiver, NPAM, to Follow City Ordinances/Regulations in the Performance of Its

Duties/Responsibilities

38 At this point, the Defendant had filed eighteen (18) separate filings in the

Consolidated Cases. And he wasn’t done

B. Civil Suits initiated against the Plaintiffs

39. In early November, the Defendant initiated two civil suits before this Court: the

First Civil Case on November 6, 2023, and the Second Civil Case on November 8, 2023.

40. The First Civil Case was filed against both the City and its Code Enforcement

Division. The Defendant’s Complaint in that case went so far as to ask this Court to “find the city

guilty” of purportedly “illegal tactics” that resulted in the “misappropriation” of the Properties.

See Complaint, filed on November 6, 2023, in the First Civil Case, { 45.

41 The City had to engage counsel to represent it in defending against these claims

Through this counsel, the City filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Civil Case on November 30,

2023

42. The Second Civil Case was filed against both the Receiver and Judge Stephanie

Mingo. In that case, the Defendant’s Complaint accused Judge Mingo of partiality against him,

further stating that she has no care for the “overall welfare of the residents of the city”. See

Complaint, filed on November 8, 2023, in the Second Civil Case, J 15-16.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y¥37

43. Since the Second Civil Case involved another plaintiff besides the Defendant

(namely, Tracey Johnson), the Defendant filed one last motion in the Consolidated Cases, another

Motion to Add New Party on November 8, 2023.

44 After this, and over the course of the next month, the Defendant would shift his

attention to the Second Civil Case

a Memorandum: Attorney Zachary Gwinn Should Have Recused Self from
Case?, filed on November 30, 2023;

a Joint Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Amended
Complaint, filed on December 4, 2023;>

the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on December 6,
2023 (the “Motion for Preliminary Injunction”); and

a Memorandum: Is an Order for Receivership an Order for Expropriation
of Private Property?, filed on December 13, 2023

45 Attempting to stem the tide, the Receiver filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Civil

Case on December 11, 2023, and then a Motion of Receiver to Stay All Proceedings Until Court

Rules on Motions to Dismiss on December 13, 2023. Again, this posed substantial cost to the

receivership estate through additional legal fees.

46. Recently, on January 8, 2024, the Defendant filed his Plaintiff's Response to

Attorney Coutinho’s Motion to Dismiss, responding to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Receiver.

This latest filing continued to repeat the same arguments as proposed in his other motions, and, in

the Receiver’s opinion, is without any real basis in law.

Cc Filings in the Tenth District & Further Appeals

47. Meanwhile, the Defendant brought two appellate actions before the Appellate

Court. In the First Appellate Case, the Defendant sought to appeal both the Receiver Order and the

3 This filing was in response to a Motion to Dismiss filed on November 27, 2023, by Judge Mingo in the Second Civil
Suit
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y38

Decision and Entry Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Order to Strike Motion for Mistrial

Filed June 20, 2023 (the “Strike Order”) in the Consolidated Cases.

48. Through the Second Appellate Case, filed November 15, 2023, the Defendant oddly

sought only to appeal the Strike Order—one half of what was already being addressed in the First

Appellate Case.

49. This Second Appellate Case was quickly dismissed by the Appellate Court, sua

sponte, on November 20, 2023. See Journal Entry of Dismissal, in the Second Appellate Case.

This dismissal specifically cited the untimely nature of the Defendant’s filing; the Appellate Court

stated that the Defendant could have appealed up through September 20, 2023, but instead he had

waited until November.

50. Over two months after initiating the First Appellate Case, the Defendant had failed

to ever file an appellate brief. This was a failure to comply with Rule 18(C) of the Ohio Rules of

Appellate Procedure and, along with other procedural deficiencies, was something the Plaintiffs

addressed in their Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed December 8, 2023

51 On December 20, 2023, the Appellate Court dismissed the First Appellate Case,

specifically citing the Defendant’s continued failure to file an appellate brief.

52. This dismissal inspired the Defendant to finally participate in the action, similar to

the Defendant’s outburst immediately following the Environmental Court’s entering of its

Receiver Order. That very same day (December 20, 2023), the Defendant filed a Motion for

Additional Time to File Appellant's Opening Brief, and then followed that with his Appellant's

Preliminary Brief.

53. The Appellate Court dismissed both of those filings as moot

10
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - ¥3

54. Undeterred, the Defendant simply started up a different case before the Appellate

Court, filing his Complaint for Writ of Prohibition and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on

Non-Abatement Work and Emergency Stay of Evictions on December 22, 2023. It is worth noting

that this last complaint is substantially similar to the allegations made in every filing before the

Appellate Court, this Court, and the Environmental Court across the many different suits.

55 The Defendant has also appealed the Second Appellate Case to the Supreme Court

of Ohio. See Notice of Appeal of Appellant Jose Villavicencio, filed in Case No. 2024-0019 (the

“Supreme Court Case”) on January 4, 2024

56. On January 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion for an Emergency Stay of the

Receivership, Eviction of Tenants, and Performance of Non-Abatement Work in the Supreme Court

Case. The Plaintiffs believe this is substantially a restatement of the Defendant’s earlier Motion

for Preliminary Injunction in the Second Civil Case.

D. New Filings in the Consolidated Cases in 2024

57. So far in the new year, the Defendant has continued filing motions against the

Receiver, returning his efforts to the Consolidated Cases.

58. On January 11, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion by Defendant for Trial by Jury (the

“Jury Motion”), referencing solely a criminal statute and an overturned case as support for a trial

by jury in the Consolidated Cases. The reasons for having a trial, the issues that would be disputed,

are left unclear in that motion.

59. On that same date, Defendant also filed a Memorandum: Is an Order for

Receivership an Order for Expropriation of Private Property?, which is an exact duplicate, word-

for-word, of a memorandum filed under the same name in the Second Civil Suit on December 13,

11
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y40

2023. There is no better example of the Defendant’s continual recycling of arguments than this

wholesale replication of a filing already submitted in another case.

60. The Environmental Court issued an order sua sponte on January 17, 2024 (the “Jury

Order”), denying the Defendant’s Jury Motion as moot.

61. In response, on January 23, 2024, the Defendant filed another Notice of Appeal,

seeking to appeal the Jury Order and continue his antics in yet another case before the Appellate

Court. This latest appeal initiated the Fourth Appellate Case.

E Defendant’s Unauthorized Practice of Law

62. The Defendant has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law throughout this

case, see J 30 of this complaint, but, even before the appointment of the Receiver, the Defendant

had already been warned to avoid such conduct.

63 On or about June 20, 2023, Defendant filed a “Motion for Mistrial” purportedly on

behalf of the Owner Entities, despite the fact that the Defendant is not admitted to the Ohio Bar

and is not permitted to represent those entities in a legal capacity. See R.C. § 4705.01; see also

Jabr v. Columbus, 2023-Ohio-2781, fn. 1 (10th Dist. Aug. 10, 2023).

64. The City moved to strike that “Motion for Mistrial” on July 18, 2023, and the

Environmental Court granted the City’s request on August 21, 2023. See Decision and Entry

Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Order to Strike Motion for Mistrial Filed June 20, 2023

In its order, the Environmental Court specifically noted that the Defendant is not an attorney

licensed to practice in Ohio and therefore cannot file a motion on behalf of the Owner Entities. Jd.

65 In this way, the Defendant was informed through example that he was not allowed

to serve others in a representative capacity while representing himself pro se.

12
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y41

66. Despite this, the Defendant has since continued to engage in the unauthorized

practice of law by bringing some of the Properties’ tenants to the Franklin County Municipal Court

and having them file an Application to Deposit Rent with the Clerk. This would have the effect of

initiating a rent escrow action for the tenant, which would likely lead to the court awarding rental

funds to the landlord recorded on their application. The landlord was falsely listed as Brian

Gearheart (an agent of the Defendant), as opposed to the Receiver. This would have the practical

effect of circumventing the receivership process by extracting payments from tenants who owed

rent to the Receiver.

67. After being warned that representing others in a legal capacity constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law, the Defendant actively sought to walk tenants through processes that

would disrupt the receivership. This demonstrates a persistent disrespect for the practice of law

F. Other Examples of Vexatious Conduct

68 The issues that Defendant has with the receivership have extended into eviction

court. On January 12, 2024, the Defendant filed a Complaint
for Unlawful Lockout/Constructive

Eviction, Property Damages, Emotional Distress, Special Damages and Attorney Fees against the

Receiver in the Franklin County Municipal Court, Case No. 2024 CVE 1537 (the “Eviction Case”)

The Receiver has yet to file a responsive pleading to that complaint, but it is safe to say that the

Eviction Case, which Defendant also filed without first seeking leave from the Environmental

Court, violates both the Barton Doctrine and the stay imposed by the Receiver Order.

69. The Defendant’s habit of rampantly filing motions is not restricted solely to cases

against the Plaintiffs, however.

70. In two traffic cases before the Franklin County Municipal Court this past year,

specifically Case Nos. 2021 TRD 142870 and 2022 TRD 133775 (the “Traffic Cases”), the

13
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
OG711 - Y4

Defendant filed a Motion to Have Post-Sentencing Hearing Under a Different Judge on November

22, 2023. After a hearing on sentencing had already occurred, the Defendant filed this motion to

disqualify the judge and dismiss the case against him.

71 After the Defendant's initial attempt to disqualify the judge was denied by the Ohio

Supreme Court, the Defendant again attempted to disqualify the judge, which second attempt also

failed.

COUNT I: VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR

72. The Plaintiffs re-allege each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if

fully restated herein.

73 A “vexatious litigator’ under R.C. § 2323.52(A)(3) is any person who has

“habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct in a civil

action or actions, whether in the court of claims or in a court of appeals, court of common pleas,

municipal court, or county court, whether the person or another person instituted the civil action

or actions, and whether the vexatious conduct was against the same party or against different

parties in the civil action or actions.”

74. “Vexatious conduct” means conduct of a party in a civil action that serves merely

to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action, is not warranted under existing law

and cannot be supported by a good faith argument, or is imposed solely to delay. R.C. §

2323.52(A)(2)
7S. The Defendant has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds

engaged in conduct meant to harass and delay the Plaintiffs

76. Through all of the cases above and the Defendant’s many filings therein, the

Defendant has continually harassed and sought to delay the Plaintiffs by directing their attention

14
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
OG711 - Y4

and resources away from the abatement of nuisances at the Properties, or any of the hundreds of

thousands of other properties in Columbus, Ohio.

77. The Defendant’s conduct was not warranted under existing law and could not be

supported by good faith arguments.

78. The Defendant’s actions constitute vexatious conduct under R.C. § 2323.52

79. The Plaintiffs have been subjected to and have defended against this vexatious

conduct.

80. Under R.C. § 2323.52(B), any person “who has defended against habitual and

persistent vexatious conduct...may commence a civil action in a court of common pleas with

jurisdiction over the person who allegedly engaged in the habitual and persistent vexatious conduct

to have that person declared a vexatious litigator.”

81 Due to the continuous vexatious conduct that the Defendant has exhibited through

the habitual, persistent, and groundless filing of motions and pleadings against the Plaintiffs and

other parties, the Defendant is a vexatious litigator.

82. The Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that Defendant Jose Villavicencio is a

“vexatious litigator” under R.C. § 2323.52.

83 Accordingly, under R.C. § 2323.52(D)(1), the Plaintiffs request that the Court enter

an order subjecting the Defendant to the scrutiny of this Court prior to instituting legal proceedings,

continuing legal proceedings, or making any application besides an application for leave.

84. Under R.C. § 2323.52(H), the Plaintiffs also request that the Clerk of this Court

then send a certified copy of the order to the Ohio Supreme Court for publication in a manner that

the Supreme Court determines is appropriate and that will facilitate all lower courts in refusing to

accept pleadings from the Defendant submitted without leave to proceed.

15
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
0G711 - Y44

85. Additionally, although attorney fees are not ordinarily recoverable under the

American Rule, Ohio law allows attorney fees to be recovered where the losing party has acted

vexatiously. See Metro Renovations 12, LLC v. Sabir, 215 N.E.3d 1242, 1258 (5" Dist. 2023),

citing Sorin v. Board of Ed. Of Warrensville Heights School Dist., 46 Ohio St.2d 177, 181 (1976).

86. The Plaintiffs request reasonable attorney fees as appropriate and incurred by the

Plaintiffs in prosecution of this case.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs demand as follows

1 that the Defendant be declared a “Vexatious Litigator” under Ohio law;

i that the Court enter an order subjecting the Defendant to the scrutiny of the

Court, and require the Defendant to seek leave of the Court before

instituting legal proceedings, continuing legal proceedings (such as through

filing motions), or making any application besides an application for leave;

ili that the Clerk send a certified copy of the order to the Supreme Court of

Ohio in a manner that the Supreme Court determines is appropriate and that

will facilitate a clerk of a court of appeals, court of common pleas,

municipal court, or county court in refusing to accept pleadings or other

papers submitted by the Defendant when he fails to obtain leave to proceed;

Iv that the Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney fees, as appropriate and

incurred by the Plaintiffs in prosecution of this case; and

any further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

16
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 PM-24CV000987
OG711 - Y4

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James A. Coutinho
James A. Coutinho (0082430)
AndrewD. Rebholz (0102192)
Allen Stovall Neuman & Ashton LLP
10 West Broad Street, Suite 2400
Columbus, Ohio 43215
T: (614) 221-8500; F: (614) 221-5988
coutinho@asnalaw.com; rebholz@asnalaw.com
Counsel for New Perspective Asset
Management LLC

CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ZACH KLEIN, CITY ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher C. Clark
Christopher C. Clark (0096257)
Assistant City Attorney
375 South High Street, 17" Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 645-5670
Fax: (614) 645-6548
ccclark@columbus.gov
Counsel for City of Columbus, Ohio

17
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 pm-2acvdnaXda i b it A
OG711 - Y4
Page 1 of 13
FIL
IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL GOWRTE ‘ounty Municipal Court
ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
AUG 21 2023
City of Columbus, Ohio
LORI M. TYACK, CLERK
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2016 EVA 6b03
v. (Lead Consolidated Case!)

South German Village Medical Center, LLC,
etal., Judge Stephanie Mingo

Defendants.

State Ex. Rel Columbus City Attorney, Zach
Klein,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2021 EVH 60053
(Consolidated Case)
Vv.

South German Village, LLC, et al., Judge Stephanie Mingo

Defendants.

State Ex. Rel Columbus City Attomey, Zach.
Klein,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2022 EVH 60082
(Consolidated Case)
Vv.

South German Village Medical Center, LLC, Judge Stephanie Mingo
etal,

Defendants.

1 Pursuant to the Court’s Entry Consolidating Matters filed May 25, 2022 and the Order and Contempt Finding
entered January 31, 2023 the following cases before this Court have been consolidated:
2016 EVH 60013,
2021 EVH 60053,
2022 EVH 60082,
2022 EVH 60507, and
2022 EVH 60624.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 pm-2acvdnaXda i b it A
0G711 - Y47
Page 2 of 13
City of Columbus, Ohio

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2022 EVH 60507
Vv. (Consolidated Case)
ARGOUS LLC, et al.,
Judge Stephanie Mingo
Defendants.

State Ex. Rel Columbus City Attorney, Zach
Klein,

Plaintiff, Case No, 2022 EVH 60624
(Consolidated Case)
Vv.

JRV SEPIRA LLC, et al., Judge Stephanie Mingo

Defendants.

ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND APPROVING REHABILITATION PLAN

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Appoint Receiver (the “Motion”) filed

by Plaintiff City of Columbus, Ohio. Through the Motion and pursuant to R.C. § 3767.41, the

Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint a receiver over the following real property (the

“Properties”) to abate the nuisances at the Properties.

1. 2-8 Reeb Ave.
Columbus, OH 43207
Parcel No. 010-053241-00

36 E. Innis Ave.
Columbus, OH 43207
Parcel No. 010-050784-00

238-240 Reeb Ave.
Columbus, OH 43207
Parcel No. 010-038210-00

289-291 Brehl Ave.
Columbus, OH 43223
Parcel No. 010-069942-00
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 pm-2acvdnaXda i b it A
0G711 - Y48
Page 3 of 13
5. 315-317 Taylor Ave.
Colulmbus, OH 43203
010-033461-00

364-366 E. Innis Ave.
Columbus, OH 43207
010-047389-00

377 Berkeley Rd.
Columbus, OH 43205
Parcel No. 010-043652-00

463 8. 22™4 St.
Columbus, OH 43205
Parcel No. 010-030360-00

629-631 S. Wheatland Ave.
Columbus, OH 43204
Parcel No. 010-094530-00

10. 665 S. 22" St.
Columbus, OH 43205
Parcel No. 010-000193-00

11. 669 8. 22™ St,
Columbus, OH 43205
Parcel No. 010-043166-00

12, 841-843 Ann St.
Columbus, OH 43206
Parcel No. 010-052905-00

13. 929-931 Bellows Ave.
Columbus, OH 43223
Parcel No. 010-042603-00

14. 1270 S. Ohio Ave.
Columbus, OH 43206
Parcel No. 010-032342-00

15. 1931 S. Parsons Ave.
Columbus, OH 43207
Parcel No. 010-015293-00
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 pm-2acvdnaXda i b it A
OG711 - Y4
Page 4 of 13

16. 2504 Bar Harbor Pl.
Columbus, OH 43207
Parcel No. 010-148624-00

The Plaintiff recommends that New Perspective Asset Management, LLC (“NPAM”), through its

principals Dana Milligan (“Ms. Milligan”) and Shawn Parker (‘“Mr. Parker”), be appointed. as

receiver in this case. The Plaintiff further seeks approval of NPAM’s professionals to assist in this

matter.

A copy of the Motion and a notice of the hearing was served on the owner of the Properties

and all known lienholders on the Properties (the “Lienholders”), Sufficient time lapsed for an

objection to the Motion to be filed, and no objection was filed.

Upon consideration of the Motion, the Court finds the Motion to be well-taken and it is

hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to R.C. § 3767.41, the Court finds that itis appropriate to appoint a

receiver over the Properties for the purpose of abating the nuisances.

The Court makes the following findings:

A Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this Court because of the Properties being

in Franklin County, Ohio.

B This is a nuisance abatement action involving the Properties. The City filed claims

under R.C. § 3767.41 (buildings found to be a public nuisance), and the Columbus City Code. The

owners of the Properties have failed to adequately maintain the Properties, causing them to

deteriorate to the point where they are now a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare in

violation of the Columbus Nuisance Abatement Code.

Cc. All prerequisites to the appointment of a receiver over the Properties as required by

R.C. § 3767.41 have been met as follows:
0G711 -
Franklin Count ty Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2024 Feb 02 1:08 P.
Y¥50
w-zacvemmdaibit A
Page 5 of 13
The Court has previously determined that the Properties are a public nuisance. R.C.

§3767.41(C)Q).
The Court has determined that the owners of the Properties have been afforded a

reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance and have refused or failed to do so. Hd.

Each of the Lienholders has had an opportunity to undertake the work to abate the

nuisance and has not committed to or submitted a plan to do so. Id.

NPAM, being a qualified third party that is willing to undertake the work, has

submitted a viable financial and construction plan for the Properties. R.C. §

3767.41(C)(3) (the “Rehabilitation Plan”). The Rehabilitation Plan submitted by

NPAM meets all requirements of R.C. § 3767.41(D) and is approved.

D. The Court finds that the appointment of a receiver under R.C. § 3767.41 is an

appropriate remedy for the abatement of the nuisances in this matter, and it is an appropriate

solution for the rehabilitation of the Properties.

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

1 Appointment of Receiver. New Perspective Asset Management, LLC, through its

principals, Ms. Milligan and Mr. Parker, is immediately appointed as Receiver (the “Receiver”)

over the Properties.

2. Purpose of Receivership. The purpose of this receivership is for the Receiver to

abate the nuisances at the Properties and rehabilitate the Properties in accordance with the

Rehabilitation Plan.

3 Approval of Rehabilitation Plan a

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for NEW PERSPECTIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC Vs JOSE VILLAVICENCIO ET AL VS.JOSE VILLAVICENCIO

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Document for NEW PERSPECTIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC Vs JOSE VILLAVICENCIO ET AL VS.JOSE VILLAVICENCIO

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties