We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living Et Al Vs. D.J. Keehan Et Al

Case Last Refreshed: 7 months ago

Assunta Rossi, Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living Trust, Robert V. Traci, filed a(n) Estate Administration - Probate case represented by James A Marx, Pro Se, against Chicago Title Company, Llc, David Keehan, D. J. Keehan, Gh Holdings Llc, Online Communications Llc, (total of 7) See All represented by Denio A Leone, Stephen P Hanudel, in the jurisdiction of Cuyahoga County, OH, . Cuyahoga County, OH Superior Courts with MAUREEN CLANCY presiding.

Case Details for Assunta Rossi v. Chicago Title Company, Llc , et al.

Judge

MAUREEN CLANCY

Filing Date

February 26, 2021

Category

Contract - Real Estate

Last Refreshed

November 10, 2023

Practice Area

Probate

Filing Location

Cuyahoga County, OH

Matter Type

Estate Administration

Case Outcome Type

Bankrpt/C.O.A. Stay

Parties for Assunta Rossi v. Chicago Title Company, Llc , et al.

Plaintiffs

Assunta Rossi

Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living Trust

Robert V. Traci

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

James A Marx

Pro Se

Defendants

Chicago Title Company, Llc

David Keehan

D. J. Keehan

Gh Holdings Llc

Online Communications Llc

Signature Building Concepts Llc

Westlake Shadow Creek, Llc An Ohio Corporation

Attorneys for Defendants

Denio A Leone

Stephen P Hanudel

Case Documents for Assunta Rossi v. Chicago Title Company, Llc , et al.

CASE CALLED FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF BETH HAIGHT-HOWARD HANNA, FILED 11/22/2021, ON 12/22/2021. DEFENDANTS APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PLAINTIFF TRACI APPEARED PRO SE. PLAINTIFF ROSSI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND PLAINTIFF TRUST. THE COURT MARKED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH HEARD AND SUBMITTED. THE PARTIES ALSO PRESENTED ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED 12/14/2021, AND TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS FILED AN OPPOSITION ON 12/20/2021; AS WELL AS DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL, FILED 12/14/2021, TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS' ALSO FILED AN OPPOSITION ON 12/20/2021. THE COURT MARKED DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL HEARD AND SUBMITTED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL, FILED 12/14/2021, PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION, FILED 12/20/2021, AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE AT THE 12/22/2021 HEARING, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART. THE 01/04/2022 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND 02/02/2022 TRIAL ARE CANCELLED AT THIS TIME. A ZOOM CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 02/02/2022 AT 12:30 PM. PROVIDED ALL PARTIES HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, A SCHEDULE WILL BE SET AT THAT TIME. THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE AVAILABLE VIA THE FOLLOWING LINK: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/96295690507. IN ADDITION, THE PARTIES INFORMED THE COURT THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE COURT'S 10/27/2021 ORDER REGARDING THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN PLAINTIFFS' 09/07/2021 MOTION TO COMPEL. ACCORDINGLY, THAT MOTION IS MOOT. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 02/02/2022 AT 12:30 PM. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: December 23, 2021

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF BETH HAIGHT-HOWARD HANNA, FILED 11/22/2021. DEFENDANTS FILED AN OPPOSITION ON 11/23/2021. AT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST, THE COURT HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION ON 12/22/2021. UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION, DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION, AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES AT THE HEARING, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. THE PARTY TO WHOM THE SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED IS A NON-PARTY IN THIS MATTER, AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED IS PUBLIC INFORMATION IN ADDITION, THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFFS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO QUASH A SUBPOENA AGAINST A NON-PARTY. SEE JONES V. RECORDS DEPOSITION SERV. OF OHIO, 6TH DIST. LUCAS NO. L-01-1333, 2002-OHIO-2269, P13 ("THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT ONLY THE PERSON SUBPOENAED HAS STANDING TO FILE A MOTION CHALLENGING THE SUBPOENA UNDER CIV.R. 45(C) IN ORDER TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA"); MEZATASTA V. ENTER. HILL FANN, 6TH DIST. ERIE NO. E-15-037, 2016 OHIO APP. LEXIS 2418, *17 (JUNE 10, 2014) ("ONLY THE PERSON SUBPOENAED HAS STANDING TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA"); RAMUS V. RAMUS, 8TH DIST. CUYAHOGA 1976 OHIO APP. LEXIS 7431, *10 (AUG. 19, 1976) ("APPELLANT HAS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENA OF HIS MOTHER, OR ANY WITNESS OTHER THAN HIMSELF"); FATHER'S HOUSE INT'L, INC. V. KURGUZ, 10TH DIST. FRANKLIN NO. 13-CV-008622, 2014 OHIO MISC. LEXIS 24831, *5 (APRIL 4, 2014) ("UNDER CIV. R. 45(C)(2)(B) THAT ONLY THE PERSON COMMANDED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS BY A SUBPOENA CAN PROPERLY OBJECT TO IT"). ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: January 04, 2022

CASE CALLED FOR HEARING ON THE DISCOVERY ISSUES PENDING IN THIS CASE ON 10/20/2021. DEFENDANTS APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PLAINTIFF TRACI APPEARED PRO SE. PLAINTIFF ROSSI APPEARED ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND PLAINTIFF TRUST. THE COURT MARKED THE MATTER HEARD AND SUBMITTED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED 09/22/2021, IS MOOT BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. PLAINTIFF ROSSI WILL APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FOR RULE 30(B)(5) DEPOSITION, FILED 09/07/2021, AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, FILED 09/02/2021, ARE ALSO MOOT BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. DEFENDANT KEEHAN WILL APPEAR FOR A 30(B)(5) DEPOSITION. THE PARTIES AGREED THAT QUESTIONS ASKED IN DEFENDANT KEEHAN'S INDIVIDUAL DEPOSITION WILL NOT BE REPEATED, AND THAT NO QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED REGARDING OTHER PENDING LITIGATION. IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFFS' ORAL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REVISE PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES WAS UNOPPOSED AND GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SHALL HAVE THROUGH 10/27/2021 IN WHICH TO PROPOUND PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S REVISED INTERROGATORIES UPON DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE THROUGH 11/08/2021 IN WHICH TO RESPOND. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FILED 09/07/2021, IS PARTIALLY MOOT AS TO PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES. FURTHERMORE, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY, FILED 08/18/2021, IS GRANTED. ALL PRIOR DATES SET BY THE COURT ARE HELD IN ABEYANCE AT THIS TIME. A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 11/17/2021 AT 1:00 PM. PLAINTIFF TO CALL THE COURT AT 216-698-2892 WHEN ALL PARTIES ARE ON THE LINE. THE LITIGATION SCHEDULE WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/17/2021 AT 01:00 PM. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: October 26, 2021

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FILED 09/07/2021. DEFENDANTS FILED A RESPONSE ON 09/14/2021. A HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION WAS HELD ON 10/20/2021. AT THAT TIME, THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED ORAL MOTION TO RE-PROPOUND PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES UPON DEFENDANTS. ACCORDINGLY, AS TO PLAINTIFF ROSSI'S INTERROGATORIES, THIS MOTION IS MOOT. THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF TRACI'S INTERROGATORIES AS FOLLOWS (INTERROGATORIES 22-27 WERE RENUMBERED AT THE HEARING DUE TO DUPLICATE NUMBERS): INT. 5 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 6 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 7 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 14(B) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL CONCLUSION INT. 14(C) - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE INTERROGATORY REQUESTS A LEGAL CONCLUSION INT. 19 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 20 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND REGARDING WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE DENIED A CONSTRUCTION LOAN FOR UNIT 35, AND IF SO BY WHICH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BUT DO NOT NEED TO DISCLOSE WHY THE LOAN APPLICATION WAS DENIED, IF APPLICABLE INT. 21 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 22 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 23 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 24 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 25 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 26 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND INT. 27 - MOOT PER THE HEARING INT. 28 - MOOT PER THE HEARING THE COURT ALSO FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS -- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL RULES, I.E. STATING WHICH DOCUMENT IS RESPONSIVE TO WHICH RFP, AND IF THERE ARE NO RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, STATING THAT -- AS FOLLOWS: RFP 1 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 2 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 3 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 8 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 9 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 10 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 12 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 13 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED AS THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFFS RFP 14 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND RFP 16 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS ARE TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS REQUEST RFP 17 - DEFENDANTS SHALL RESPOND FOR YEARS 2019-2020 RFP 18 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 19 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 20 - DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER RFP 21- DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS ARE SUSTAINED BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING. THE ENTITIES AT ISSUE IN THIS REQUEST ARE NOT RELATED TO THIS MATTER DEFENDANTS ARE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY AS DETAILED IN THIS ORDER BY 11/29/2021, OR THE COURT WILL GRANT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND MAY AWARD SANCTIONS. PLAINTIFFS SHALL REVISE RFP 16 WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THIS ENTRY. THE COURT WILL ADDRESS RFP 16 AT THE 11/17/2021 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: October 27, 2021

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED 05/22/2021. PLAINTIFFS FILED AN OPPOSITION ON 05/26/2021. UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION AND PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED. PURSUANT TO STATE EX REL. BUSH V. SPURLOCK, 42 OHIO ST.3D 77, 80, A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED UNDER CIV.R. 12(B)(6) WILL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE THE PARTY OPPOSING THE MOTION IS UNABLE TO PROVE ANY SET OF FACTS THAT WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF. INDEED, BEFORE A COURT MAY DISMISS AN ACTION UNDER THIS RULE, "* * * IT MUST APPEAR BEYOND DOUBT FROM THE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE NO SET OF FACTS ENTITLING HIM TO RECOVERY." O'BRIEN V. UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY TENANTS UNION (1975), 42 OHIO ST.2D 242, 71 O.O.2D 223, 327 N.E.2D 753, SYLLABUS. TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRET ALL MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE AND ADMITTED. STATE EX REL. BUSH V. SPURLOCK, 42 OHIO ST.3D 77, 80. THE COURT MUST DRAW ALL REASONABLE INFERENCE IN FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY. MITCHELL V. LAWSON MILK CO., 40 OHIO ST.3D 190, 192, 532 N.E.2D 753 (1988). THE EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THAT THE "OHIO CIVIL RULES REQUIRE 'NOTICE PLEADING' RATHER THAN 'FACT PLEADING.' 'NOTICE PLEADINGS' UNDER CIV.R. 8(A) AND 8(E) MERELY REQUIRE THAT A CLAIM CONCISELY SET FORTH ONLY THOSE OPERATIVE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION . . . A PLAINTIFF IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS OR HER CASE AT THE PLEADING STAGE." DIAZ V. CUYAHOGA METRO. HOUS. AUTH., 8TH DIST. CUYAHOGA NO. 92907, 2010-OHIO-13, P15 (INTERNAL CITATIONS OMITTED). DRAWING ALL REASONABLE INFERENCE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS, AND TAKING THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE, PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALLEGED THE FACTS NECESSARY TO WITHSTAND A MOTION TO DISMISS. THEREFORE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: July 08, 2021

CASE CALLED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON 05/11/2021. PLAINTIFFS APPEARED PRO SE. DEFENDANTS APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER R. 12(B) AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT INSTANTER DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR, FILED 05/04/2021, IS GRANTED IN PART. DEFENDANTS INFORMED THE COURT THEY DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND INSTANTER. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND IS GRANTED AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WILL BE DEEMED FILED AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ENTRY. DEFENDANTS WILL RE-FILE THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THIS ORDER. IN ADDITION, THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING LITIGATION SCHEDULE: DISCOVERY CUT-OFF IS 08/13/2021 AFFIRMATIVE EXPERT REPORTS DUE 08/13/2021 REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS DUE 09/24/2021 DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO BE FILED BY 10/15/2021. PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 6(C), AMENDED AS OF JULY 1, 2019, BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARE DUE WITHIN 28 DAYS, AND REPLIES ARE DUE WITHIN 7 DAYS. A PAPER COURTESY COPY OF ALL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, EXHIBITS, AND DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SHALL BE HAND-DELIVERED TO THE COURT UPON FILING OF THE MOTION. BRIEFS IN OPPOSITION TO ALL NON-SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, EXCEPT MOTIONS IN LIMINE, EXPLAINED BELOW, ARE DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS. ANY REPLIES ARE DUE WITHIN 7 DAYS. PARTIES ARE TO CONFER REGARDING NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BEFORE FILING AND INDICATE THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT WHERE POSSIBLE. ANY MOTION FILED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ALL OTHER PARTIES WILL BE DENIED IF THE MOTION DOES NOT LEAVE TIME FOR THE OTHER PARTIES TO RESPOND PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 6(C). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 16(B)(3)(E), PARTIES MUST CONTACT THE COURT TO REQUEST A CONFERENCE PRIOR TO MOVING FOR AN ORDER RELATING TO DISCOVERY. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 01/04/2022 AT 1:00 PM. COUNSEL OF RECORD, PARTIES AND CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE PRESENT WITH FULL SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER ALLOWING A CLIENT OR CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR BY PHONE ONLY UPON MOTION. TRIAL SET FOR 02/02/2022 AT 09:30 A.M. ALL PARTIES ARE TO SUBMIT TRIAL BRIEFS, WITNESS LISTS, STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, MOTIONS IN LIMINE, AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE COURT AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. COURTESY COPIES SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE COURT UPON FILING. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE. PAPER COURTESY COPIES OF ALL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, MOTIONS TO COMPEL OR OTHER MOTIONS OVER 10 PAGES LONG MUST BE HAND-DELIVERED TO COURTROOM 20-B OR OTHERWISE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED PROPERLY FILED. FAILURE OF ANY PARTY TO APPEAR AT ANY SCHEDULED DATE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER MAY RESULT IN AN ADVERSE RESULT FOR THE NON-APPEARING/NON-COMPLYING PARTY, I.E., THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE BEING DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, OR JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 01/04/2022 AT 01:00 PM. TRIAL SET FOR 02/02/2022 AT 09:30 AM. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: May 20, 2021

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF(S) ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST (P1), ASSUNTA ROSSI (P2) AND ROBERT V. TRACI(P3) PRO SE 9999999 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, FILED 06/05/2022. NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS DAVID KEEHAN AND GH HOLDINGS LLC FILED A RESPONSE ON 06/10/2022. DEFENDANTS D.J. KEEHAN, WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC, SIGNATURE BUILDING CONCEPTS, LLC, AND ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC FILED A RESPONSE ON 06/13/2022. PLAINTIFFS FILED A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE ON 06/17/2022. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTIES' BRIEFS, AS WELL AS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARING HELD ON 06/02/2022, AND THIS COURT'S JOURNAL ENTRY DATED 05/04/2022, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS NOT WELL-TAKEN, AND IS DENIED. FURTHER, PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THEIR 06/05/2022 MOTION TO COMPEL IS DENIED. A TRIAL COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION IN CHOOSING THE PARTICULAR SANCTION TO IMPOSE FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, AND AN APPELLATE COURT REVIEWS THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THAT DECISION ONLY FOR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IN DETERMINING A SUITABLE SANCTION, A TRIAL COURT SHOULD CONSIDER: (1) THE HISTORY OF THE CASE; (2) ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE NONCOMPLIANCE; (3) WHAT EFFORTS, IF ANY, THE FAULTING PARTY MADE TO COMPLY; (4) THE ABILITY OR INABILITY OF THE FAULTING PARTY TO COMPLY; AND (5) ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BACKGROUND OF THE NONCOMPLIANCE, THE TRIAL COURT MUST BALANCE THE SEVERITY OF THE VIOLATION AGAINST THE DEGREE OF POSSIBLE SANCTIONS AND SELECT THE SANCTION THAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE. HUNTINGTON NAT'L BANK V. ZEUNE, 10TH DIST. FRANKLIN NO. 08AP-1020, 2009-OHIO-3482, P27 (INTERNAL CITATIONS OMITTED). IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS HELD ON THIS MATTER, THE ISSUES INVOLVED WITH DISCOVERY, AND THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY AS ADDRESSED BY THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION AND THEIR AMENDED COMPLAINT, THIS COURT FINDS THAT SANCTIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. FURTHER, THE COURT NOTES THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO THE NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS UNDER RULE 34 AND NOTICES FOR DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM UNDER RULE 30, FILED 04/11/2022, REMAINS HELD IN ABEYANCE AS TO DEFENDANTS DAVID KEEHAN AND GH HOLDINGS LLC, PURSUANT TO THE HEARING HELD ON 04/29/2022 AND THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED 05/02/2022. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: July 01, 2022

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO THE NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS UNDER RULE 34 AND NOTICES FOR DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM UNDER RULE 30, FILED 04/11/2022, AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO NOTICES FOR DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM UNDER RULE 30(B)(5), FILED 04/13/2022. DEFENDANTS SBC AND ONLINE FILED A RESPONSE ON 04/25/2022. PLAINTIFFS FILED A REPLY ON 04/27/2022. FURTHERMORE, THE COURT HELD A HEARING ON THESE MOTIONS ON 04/29/2022. UPON CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS, DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE, PLAINTIFFS' REPLY, AND THE HEARING, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: THE ADDITION OF THE NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS (INCLUDING SIGNATURE AND ONLINE) IS PREMISED ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THOSE PARTIES, ALONG WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS IN VARIOUS WAYS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' RESIDENCE (30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO). ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE AND ONLINE ARE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THIS ENTRY: 1. PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN YOUR QUICKBOOKS TO INCLUDE, INTER ALIA, ALL PAYMENTS MADE, PAYEES, INVOICES, PURPOSE OF PAYMENTS, DATES OF CHECKS WRITTEN, DATES OF WORK PERFORMED, OR MATERIALS PAID FOR, ETC., AS LONG AS THOSE ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS RELATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO. 3. PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL INVOICES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO IN YOUR POSSESSION THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY ALL COMPANIES AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHO PERFORMED ANY SERVICES IN OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK, WESTLAKE, OHIO. 4. PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL INVOICES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO IN YOUR POSSESSION THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY ALL COMPANIES AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPLIED AND/OR PROVIDED ANY MATERIALS FOR USE IN OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK, WESTLAKE, OHIO. 5. PRODUCE COPIES OF ALL 1099'S, W-2S, OR K-1'S THAT YOUR COMPANY PROVIDED TO ANY PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND/OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WHO PERFORMED ANY SERVICES IN OR CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 2019, 2020 AND 2021. 7. PRODUCE A COPY OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN CONTRACT BETWEEN WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK AND RLR FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO. 8. PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL LOANS, "DRAWS", WITHDRAWALS, ETC. BY WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK LLC THAT WAS USED AT ANY TIME FOR MATERIALS, LABOR AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK, WESTLAKE IN 2019, 2020, AND 2021. 9. PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL DOCUMENTS, CHECKS, REGISTERS, PAYMENTS, OR MONEY TRANSFERS BETWEEN WSC (OR ON BEHALF OF WSC) AND RLR FROM ANY SOURCE, INCLUDING ESCROW ACCOUNTS AND/OR AGENTS, THAT WERE UTILIZED TO PAYBACK OR REDUCE OUTSTANDING LOANS FROM RLR RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE, WESTLAKE, OHIO. IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE AND ONLINE SHALL SCHEDULE DEPOSITIONS WITH PLAINTIFFS WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THIS ENTRY. IF DEFENDANTS SIGNATURE AND ONLINE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL WILL BE GRANTED AND SANCTIONS MAY BE AWARDED. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: May 04, 2022

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (FILED 07/05/2022). DEFENDANTS, D. J. KEEHAN(D1), WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC(D2), SIGNATURE BUILDING CONCEPTS LLC(D5) AND ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, FILED A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ON 07/18/2022. A HEARING ON THE MOTION WAS HELD ON 08/08/2022 WITH COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES PRESENT. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE BRIEFS AND FURTHER ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE HEARING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, FILED 06/05/2022, SOUGHT FIFTEEN CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS FROM ALL DEFENDANTS AND NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS, AS SET FORTH ON PAGES 9 TO 10 OF THE MOTION. AT THE 08/08/2022 HEARING, PLAINTIFF NOTED THAT NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS GH HOLDINGS, LLC AND DAVID KEEHAN HAD PRODUCED ALL RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, AND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT SEEKING TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY FROM NEW PARTY DEFENDANTS GH HOLDINGS, LLC AND DAVID KEEHAN. ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT WILL HEREIN ADDRESS THE FIFTEEN REQUESTS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS D. J. KEEHAN(D1), WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC(D2), SIGNATURE BUILDING CONCEPTS LLC(D5) AND ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS LLC (HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS "DEFENDANTS"). REQUEST 1: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO TURN OVER ALL ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN QUICKBOOKS FOR WSC, SIGNATURE, ONLINE AND GH, THAT ARE RELATED TO WORK PERFORMED OR MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR UNIT 35, FOR THE YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2020. REQUEST 2: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO TURN OVER ALL QUICKBOOK CHECK REGISTERS OF THE BUSINESS CHECKING ACCOUNTS FOR WSC, SIGNATURE, ONLINE AND GH TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE RELATED TO WORK PERFORMED OR MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR UNIT 35, FOR THE YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2020. REQUESTS 3-5: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL INVOICES THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY ALL COMPANIES AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPLIED AND/OR PROVIDED ANY LABOR OR SERVICES, THAT WERE INVOLVED OR RELATED IN ANY WAY TO ANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNIT 35 FROM 2017-2020. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL INVOICES THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY ALL COMPANIES AND/OR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPLIED AND/OR PROVIDED ANY MATERIALS THAT WAS USED FOR AND/OR RELATED IN ANY WAY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PORTION OF UNIT 35 FROM 2017-2020. DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED TO PRODUCE COPIES OF ALL 1099'S, W-2S, OR K-1'S THAT WSC PROVIDED TO ANY INDIVIDUALS, PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND/OR ANY OTHER ENTITY FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 2017 2020 FOR WORK INVOLVING ANY PART OF UNIT 35. REQUEST 6: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. REQUEST 7: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE A COPY OF ALL LOANS, "DRAWS", WITHDRAWALS, ETC. BY WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK LLC FROM RLR FROM JULY 5, 2017 TO PRESENT THAT WAS USED AT ANY TIME FOR MATERIALS, LABOR AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF UNIT 35, 30033 SHADOW CREEK, WESTLAKE. REQUEST 8-13: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS DENIED. REQUESTS 14-15: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE MOST RECENT STATEMENT PRIOR TO CLOSING OF UNIT 35 FROM RLR TO WSC THAT SETS FORTH THE OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OF WSC. DEFENDANTS ARE ALSO ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE MOST RECENT STATEMENT AFTER THE POSTING OF THE PAYMENT OF $289,000 PAID TO RLR AT THE CLOSING OF UNIT 35 FROM RLR TO WSC THAT SETS FORTH THE OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OF WSC. DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, TO THE EXTENT THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN PRODUCED TO PLAINTIFFS, AND TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT, ATTESTING TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THIS ENTRY. THE NOTICE SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS EACH CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS DEFENDANTS ARE BEING ORDERED TO PRODUCE, AS SPECIFICALLY ITEMIZED AND NUMBERED ABOVE. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS. TO THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION REQUESTS DISCOVERY IN ADDITION TO THE DOCUMENTS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH ABOVE, THAT REQUEST IS DENIED. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: September 21, 2022

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED 11/17/2022. DEFENDANTS D.J. KEEHAN, WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC, SIGNATURE BUILDING CONCEPTS, LLC, AND ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC'S (COLLECTIVELY, "DEFENDANTS") FILED A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ON 11/23/2022 AND PLAINTIFFS FILED A REPLY ON 11/29/2022. A HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS HELD ON 12/12/2022. PLAINTIFF ROBERT TRACI APPEARED PRO SE. ALL OTHER PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. ALL PARTIES ELECTED TO MAKE ORAL ARGUMENTS, RATHER THAN CALLING WITNESSES OR INTRODUCING EXHIBITS OTHER THAN THOSE ATTACHED TO THEIR PREVIOUS BRIEFINGS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RECONSIDERATION. FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES, THE MATTER WAS DEEMED HEARD AND SUBMITTED BY THE COURT. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE BRIEFINGS, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS FILED THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 05/09/2022 SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL COUNTS IN PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ON WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC'S COUNTERCLAIM. PLAINTIFFS FILED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY ON 05/22/2022. IN RESPONSE, DEFENDANTS FILED A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON 05/24/2022. PLAINTIFFS ALSO FILED A MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ON 06/05/2022, WHICH DEFENDANTS OPPOSED. ON 07/01/2022 THE COURT DENIED PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY, BUT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS TO FILE A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION. ON 07/05/2022 PLAINTIFFS FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S 07/01/2022 ORDERS, WHICH DEFENDANTS OPPOSED. FOLLOWING A HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN PART, ON 09/21/2022, AND ORDERED DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS. NO OTHER MOTIONS WERE FILED RELATED TO THE COURT'S RULING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. PLAINTIFFS FILED A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 07/26/2022. DEFENDANTS FILED A REPLY BRIEF ON 08/02/2022. ON 11/04/2022 THE COURT ISSUED AN EXTENSIVE ELEVEN-PAGE OPINION SETTING FORTH AND APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD. IN THE ORDER, THE COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS FOR FRAUD AND ALTER EGO LIABILITY BUT DENIED THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL OTHER CLAIMS. PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THAT THE COURT IMPROPERLY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, RATHER THAN TAKING PLAINTIFF'S ASSERTIONS AS TRUE. THE COURT FINDS THIS ARGUMENT TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. "SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE WHEN, CONSTRUING THE EVIDENCE MOST STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE NONMOVING PARTY, (1) THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT; (2) THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; AND (3) REASONABLE MINDS CAN ONLY REACH A CONCLUSION THAT IS ADVERSE TO THE NONMOVING PARTY. THE PARTY MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT NO MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT EXIST FOR TRIAL. THE MOVING PARTY BEARS THE INITIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF INFORMING THE TRIAL COURT OF THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION, AND IDENTIFYING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE RECORD THAT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT ON THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE NONMOVING PARTY'S CLAIMS. AFTER THE MOVING PARTY HAS SATISFIED THIS INITIAL BURDEN, THE NONMOVING PARTY HAS A RECIPROCAL DUTY TO SET FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS BY THE MEANS LISTED IN CIV.R. 56(C) SHOWING THAT THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT. IF THE PARTY DOES NOT RESPOND, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IF APPROPRIATE, SHALL BE ENTERED AGAINST THE PARTY." TELECOM ACQUISITION CORP. I V. LUCIC ENTERS., 2016-OHIO-1466, P86-P87, 62 N.E.3D 1034, 1052-1053, 2016 OHIO APP. LEXIS 1361, *35-36, 2016 WL 1378708 (INTERNAL CITATIONS OMITTED). "ONCE THE MOVING PARTY SATISFIES ITS BURDEN, THE NONMOVING PARTY 'MAY NOT REST UPON THE MERE ALLEGATIONS OR DENIALS OF THE PARTY'S PLEADINGS, BUT THE PARTY'S RESPONSE, BY AFFIDAVIT OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS RULE, MUST SET FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWING THAT THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL.' CIV. R. 56(E); MOOTISPAW V. ECKSTEIN, 76 OHIO ST.3D 383, 385, 667 N.E.2D 1197 (1996) "IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS, A COURT MAY NOT WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OR JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF SWORN STATEMENTS, PROPERLY FILED IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND MUST CONSTRUE THE EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE NONMOVING PARTY. '[W]HEN REVIEWING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A COURT MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OR JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. * * * INSTEAD, IT MUST CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS IN FAVOR OF THE NONMOVING PARTY.' WHEN TRIAL COURTS CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPETING AFFIDAVITS AND TESTIMONY, THEY IMPROPERLY DETERMINE CREDIBILITY AND WEIGH EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS." TELECOM AT *93 (INTERNAL CITATIONS OMITTED). THE COURT'S ORDER PROPERLY APPLIES THE ABOVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD, AS SET FORTH BELOW. THE COURT FOUND THAT GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REMAINED REGARDING WHETHER PLAINTIFFS CAN PROVE THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF WARRANTIES. THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT BECAUSE THE PARTIES PUT FORWARD COMPETING EVIDENCE REGARDING WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRACI IS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY TO THE CONTRACT, AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THEIR COUNTERCLAIM, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE ON THOSE ISSUES. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BRIEF OF WARRANTIES, AND DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM REMAINS PENDING. REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR FRAUD AND ALTER EGO LIABILITY, THE COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS MET THEIR BURDEN OF INFORMING THE COURT OF THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION, AND IDENTIFYING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE RECORD THAT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT. UPON THIS AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING, THE BURDEN SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFFS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, WRITTEN ADMISSIONS, AFFIDAVITS, TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE, AND WRITTEN STIPULATIONS OF FACT TO SHOW THAT A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REMAINED FOR TRIAL ON THOSE CLAIMS, PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 56(C). THE COURT CONSIDERED ALL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE STANDARD, INCLUDING ALL FILED DEPOSITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS WITH EXHIBITS ATTACHED, PLEADINGS, PHOTOS, AND DISCOVERY, AND CONSTRUED ALL EVIDENCE AND ANY INFERENCE IN FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY, AS REQUIRED UNDER CIV.R. 56(C). THE COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SPECIFICALLY, THE COURT FOUND THAT PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF WAS DEVOID OF ANY ARGUMENT, LET ALONE EVIDENCE, TO SHOW THAT A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT EXISTED TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR ALTER EGO LIABILITY. SIMILARLY, PLAINTIFF FOCUSED ON ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD: THE ASSERTION THAT D.J. KEEHAN SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT, FALSELY ATTESTING THAT "NO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY HAS NOTIFIED ME/US OF ANY VIOLATIONS, ABATEMENT NOTICES, OR CONDEMNATIONS." THE COURT FOUND THAT NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REMAINED WITH REGARD TO THE FRAUD CLAIM BECAUSE D.J. KEEHAN SIGNED HIS AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING THAT THERE WERE NO KNOWN VIOLATIONS ON 10-7-2020 AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD GRAYEM AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWED THAT THE CITY INSPECTED THE PATIO ON 10-22-2020 AND INFORMED D.J. KEEHAN AND MESSER OF THE VIOLATIONS ON 10-23-2020, AFTER KEEHAN SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE STATEMENT WAS FRAUDULENT WHEN IT WAS MADE. STATED DIFFERENTLY, THE COURT DID NOT NEED TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ALTER EGO AND FRAUD CLAIMS BECAUSE THE ONLY EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY EITHER PARTY SUPPORTED THE ASSERTION THAT DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS FOR FRAUD AND ALTER EGO LIABILITY. PLAINTIFF ARGUES THAT BECAUSE THE COURT PREVIOUSLY DENIED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE FRAUD CLAIMS, THE COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FRAUD CLAIM. HOWEVER, AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE MOTIONS REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS. WHILE THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE THE FACTS IN THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE WHEN DECIDING A MOTION TO DISMISS, THE NONMOVING PARTY BEARS THE BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIATING THEIR CLAIMS WITH SPECIFIC EVIDENCE, ONCE THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THEM ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PRESENT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CIV.R. 56(C) STANDARD AND WOULD SUPPORT THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. PLAINTIFFS FURTHER ARGUE THAT, EVEN IF KEEHAN'S STATEMENT WAS NOT FRAUDULENT AT THE TIME HE SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT, IT BECAME FRAUDULENT WHEN HE PRESENTED THE AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLAINTIFFS AT CLOSING. EVEN ASSUMING THAT DEFENDANTS COULD BE LIABLE FOR FRAUD WHEN A STATEMENT IN THE AFFIDAVIT BECAME TRUE AFTER IT WAS MADE BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS READ AND RELIED ON IT AT A LATER DATE, PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE UNABLE TO RECOVER FOR FRAUD AS A MATTER OF LAW. AS ARGUED BY DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AT THE HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND IN THEIR BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE EIGHTH DISTRICT HAS HELD " . . . A TORT CLAIM BASED UPON THE SAME ACTIONS AS THE ACTIONS UPON WHICH A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION ARE BASED WILL ONLY EXIST IF IN ADDITION TO CONTAINING A DUTY INDEPENDENT OF THAT CREATED BY CONTRACT, THE PLAINTIFF "MUST INCLUDE ACTUAL DAMAGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF THE ALLEGED TORTFEASOR WHICH ARE IN ADDITION TO THOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BREACH OF THE CONTRACT." EVERSTAFF, LLC V. SANSAI ENVTL. TECHS., LLC, 2011-OHIO-4824, P28, 2011 OHIO APP. LEXIS 3988, *17, 2011 WL 4390083. IN OTHER WORDS "A TORT CLAIM BASED UPON THE SAME ACTIONS AS A BREACH OF CONTRACT FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW WHERE NO DUTY IS OWED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT, I.E. THE DUTY IS OWED EVEN IF NO CONTRACT EXISTED." PIERRE INVS., INC. V. CLS CAPITAL GRP., INC., 2022-OHIO-4311, P37, 2022 OHIO APP. LEXIS 4054, *25, 2022 WL 17369093. WHEN CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ARE FACTUALLY INTERTWINED, THE FRAUD CLAIM WILL FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF CAN SHOW THAT "THE TORT CLAIM EXISTS NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTRACT AND THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL, ACTUAL DAMAGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CLAIM SEPARATE FROM THOSE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM." ID. BASED ON THE FOREGOING STANDARD, PLAINTIFFS' FRAUD CLAIM IS BARRED BECAUSE THEY HAVE FAILED TO POINT TO ANY DUTY OR DAMAGES INDEPENDENT FROM THOSE STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-FOUR OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THEY WERE DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS' FRAUD BECAUSE, ABSENT THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CLOSED ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. PARAGRAPH FOUR OF ROBERT TRACI'S AFFIDAVIT REITERATES THAT PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGES ARE TIED TO THE CONTRACT: "IF ASSUNTA ROSSI AND I HAD KNOWN OF THE VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE WE WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO CLOSE THE SALE UNLESS AND UNTIL IT WAS REPAIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY CODE. NEITHER MS. ROSSI NOR I WERE EVEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE UNTIL LATE FEBRUARY, 2021, MONTHS AFTER CLOSING." ROSSI CONCURRS IN PARAGRPH THIRTY-TWO OF HER AFFIDAVIT, "IF I HAD KNOWN OF THE VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE I WOULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO CLOSE THE SALE UNLESS AND UNTIL IT WAS REPAIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY CODE. NEITHER ROBERT TRACI NOR I WERE EVEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE UNTIL LATE FEBRUARY, 2021, MONTHS AFTER CLOSING." ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS REPEATEDLY ARGUED THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ARTICULATE A DUTY OR DAMAGE SEPERATE FROM THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DO NOT POINT TO A SEPERATE DUTY OF DAMAGES IN PAGES 3-6 OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WHICH ADDRESS THE FRAUD CLAIM, INSTEAD REITERATED THAT PLAINTIFFS WOULD NOT HAVE CLOSED ON THE CONTRACT, ABSENT THE ALLEGED FRAUD. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUD ARE CLEARLY FACTUALLY INTERTWINED. TAKING ALL INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY, PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ALLEGING DAMAGES OR A DUTY SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER ON THE CLAIM FOR FRAUD. AS NOTED ABOVE, PLAINTIFFS HAVE OFFERED NO NEW TESTIMONY OR EXHIBITS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM FOR ALTER EGO LIABILITY. "THE CORPORATE FORM MAY BE DISREGARDED AND INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDERS HELD LIABLE FOR WRONGS COMMITTED BY THE CORPORATION WHEN (1) CONTROL OVER THE CORPORATION BY THOSE TO BE HELD LIABLE WAS SO COMPLETE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS NO SEPARATE MIND, WILL, OR EXISTENCE OF ITS OWN, (2) CONTROL OVER THE CORPORATION BY THOSE TO BE HELD LIABLE WAS EXERCISED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO COMMIT FRAUD OR AN ILLEGAL ACT AGAINST THE PERSON SEEKING TO DISREGARD THE CORPORATE ENTITY, AND (3) INJURY OR UNJUST LOSS RESULTED TO THE PLAINTIFF FROM SUCH CONTROL AND WRONG." DOMBROSKI V. WELLPOINT, INC., 119 OHIO ST. 3D 506, 510-511, 2008-OHIO-4827, P18, 895 N.E.2D 538, 543, 2008 OHIO LEXIS 2582, *10-11. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IS A RARE EXCEPTION, WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF "FRAUD OR OTHER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES." ID. AT * 15. WHILE PLAINTIFF DID PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AT THE HEARING, ONLY EVIDENCE THAT MEETS THE CIV.R. 56(C) STANDARD CAN CREATE A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION CONTAINS SEVERAL GENERAL CITATIONS DIRECTING THE COURT TO REVIEW THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEVERAL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS PREVIOUSLY FILED, BUT ONLY POINTS TO ONE SPECIFIC PORTION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY ON THE ISSUE OF ALTER EGO LIABILITY ("PAGES 15-17 OF CORP. DEPO FILED WITH THE COURT"). ULTIMATELY, THE COURT NEED NOT ANALYZE WHETHER PLAINTIFFS COULD MEET THE FIRST ELEMENT OF ITS ALTER EGO CLAIM BECAUSE, AS SET FORTH ABOVE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FRAUD OR A SIMILAR EXTREME MISCONDUCT WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, FILED 11/17/2022 IS DENIED. THERE IS NO JUST CAUSE FOR DELAY. NOTICE ISSUED

Date: February 10, 2023

Case Events for Assunta Rossi v. Chicago Title Company, Llc , et al.

Type Description
E-FILING SERVICE EMAIL
DAVID KEEHAN
E-FILING SERVICE EMAIL
ROBERT V. TRACI
E-FILING SERVICE EMAIL
ASSUNTA ROSSI
E-FILING SERVICE EMAIL
D. J. KEEHAN
Docket Event NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, FILED PLAINTIFF(S) ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST(P1), ASSUNTA ROSSI(P2) and ROBERT V. TRACI(P3) JAMES A MARX 0038999. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS
NT
Docket Event THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED ITS DECISION ON THE APPEAL OF THIS CASE ON 10/12/2023, NO ACTION INCONSISTENT WITH APPELLATE COURT JURISDICTION IS TO BE TAKEN IN THIS MATTER UNTIL THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEAL TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS EXPIRED UNDER S.CTR. PRAC. R. 7.01. THIS ENTRY SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXECUTION ON A JUDGMENT WHERE NO STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS IN EFFECT. IF APPROPRIATE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPELLATE PERIOD EXPIRING, THE CASE MAY BE RETURNED AS NECESSARY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO THE DOCKET OF THE ORIGINATING COURT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. UNLESS AS OTHERWISE AGREED UPON IN WRITING BY THE PARTIES, THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE OF RE-INSTATEMENT IS 11/27/2023. ASSIGNED JUDGE UNAVAILABLE, THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BRENDAN J SHEEHAN. NOTICE ISSUED
JE
Docket Event Dismissed. >Michael John Ryan, J., Anita Laster Mays, A.J., and Eileen T. Gallagher, J., concur. Notice issued.
JE
Docket Event REGULAR MAIL SERVICE RECEIPT NO. 49976589 RETURNED 04/07/2023 FAILURE OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST NOT DELIVRBL AS ADDR NOTICE MAILED TO PLTFS ATTORNEY. $0.00
SR
JUDGMENT ENTRY REGULAR MAIL SERVICE
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
NOT DELIVRBL AS ADDR
Docket Event JUDGMENT ENTRY(49976589) SENT BY REGULAR MAIL SERVICE. TO: ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 30033 SHADOW CREEK DRIVE , 444145
SR
See all events