On February 26, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Assunta Rossi,
Assunta Rossi Personalty Revocable Living Trust,
Robert V. Traci,
and
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,
for CONTRACT - REAL ESTATE
in the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
May 26,2021 17:45
By: STEPHEN P. HANUDEL 0083486
Confirmation Nbr. 2263364
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483
LIVING ET AL
vs.
Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY
D.J. KEEHANETAL
Pages Filed: 3
Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALITY ) CASE NO. CV-21-944483
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, et al )
)
Plaintiffs ) JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY
)
v. )
)
D.J. KEEHAN )
)
and ) RESPONSE TO MOTION
) FOR SANCTIONS
WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC )
)
Defendants )
Defendants D.J. Keehan and Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC, by and through
undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is not frivolous. It seems that Plaintiffs’
motion is based on their perception that the Motion for Protective Order was filed
without a pending motion to dismiss. However, there was a motion to dismiss pending
when the Motion for Protective Order was filed. Undersigned counsel filed both the
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and the Motion for Protective Order on Saturday
May 22, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss was filed at 11:05 AM and the Motion for
Protective Order was filed at 11:06 AM. The timestamps at the bottom of each page of
the documents bear this out.
For some reason, the e-filing of the Motion for Protective Order was deemed
accepted on Saturday May 22nd, but the Motion to Dismiss was accepted on Monday
24th. Once they are accepted, regardless of when, they are stilldeemed filed at the time
Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH
of submission, which was at 11:05 AM and 11:06 AM on Saturday. Because the Motion
to Dismiss Amended Complaint was pending at the time the Motion for Protective Order
was filed, the factual basis for Plaintiff’s is meritless.
Besides, in the case management conference earlier this month, when
undersigned counsel indicated that he wished for discovery to be put on hold pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss, the Court’s staff attorney indicated that counsel
would have to file a motion for the Court to consider this issue. At that point, the case
management conference proceeded to schedule discovery and other deadlines as well
as set a trial date.
Counsel could not file a ripe motion for protective order until Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint was officially deemed filed by the Court and then counsel filed a new motion
to dismiss. The Court granted the amendment on May 20, 2021 and two days later,
counsel filed a new motion to dismiss as well as the motion for protective order.
The Motion for Protective Order was not filed in bad faith. Defendants cited case
law demonstrating the reasonableness of the motion. The motion was filed one minute
after the new Motion to Dismiss was filed and two days after the Court approved of
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
The Motion for Protective Order was not filed for the purpose of delay, but rather
to protect Defendants’ interest in making sure they do not have to turn over discovery
until the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are addressed. Itis critical that
the deficiencies are addressed because the claims in the complaint are what define the
appropriate bounds of the discovery proceedings. Defendants do not want to submit to
Plaintiffs’ having carte blanche in discovery without boundaries.
2
Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH
Based on the foregoing, Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Sanctions.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____
Stephen P. Hanudel (#0083486)
Attorney for Defendants
124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900
Elyria, Ohio 44035
Phone: (440) 328-8973
Fax: (440) 261-4040
sph812@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the foregoing was delivered to all parties via the Court’s
electronic filing system on May 26, 2021.
/s/ Stephen P. Hanudel
Stephen P. Hanudel
3
Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH
Document Filed Date
May 26, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 26, 2021
Category
CONTRACT - REAL ESTATE
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas BRIEF IN OPPOSITION May 26,2021 17:45 By: STEPHEN P. HANUDEL 0083486 Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483 LIVING ET AL vs. Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY D.J. KEEHANETAL Pages Filed: 3 Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALITY ) CASE NO. CV-21-944483 REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, et al ) ) Plaintiffs ) JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY ) v. ) ) D.J. KEEHAN ) ) and ) RESPONSE TO MOTION ) FOR SANCTIONS WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC ) ) Defendants ) Defendants D.J. Keehan and Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is not frivolous. It seems that Plaintiffs’ motion is based on their perception that the Motion for Protective Order was filed without a pending motion to dismiss. However, there was a motion to dismiss pending when the Motion for Protective Order was filed. Undersigned counsel filed both the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and the Motion for Protective Order on Saturday May 22, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss was filed at 11:05 AM and the Motion for Protective Order was filed at 11:06 AM. The timestamps at the bottom of each page of the documents bear this out. For some reason, the e-filing of the Motion for Protective Order was deemed accepted on Saturday May 22nd, but the Motion to Dismiss was accepted on Monday 24th. Once they are accepted, regardless of when, they are stilldeemed filed at the time Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH of submission, which was at 11:05 AM and 11:06 AM on Saturday. Because the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint was pending at the time the Motion for Protective Order was filed, the factual basis for Plaintiff’s is meritless. Besides, in the case management conference earlier this month, when undersigned counsel indicated that he wished for discovery to be put on hold pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, the Court’s staff attorney indicated that counsel would have to file a motion for the Court to consider this issue. At that point, the case management conference proceeded to schedule discovery and other deadlines as well as set a trial date. Counsel could not file a ripe motion for protective order until Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was officially deemed filed by the Court and then counsel filed a new motion to dismiss. The Court granted the amendment on May 20, 2021 and two days later, counsel filed a new motion to dismiss as well as the motion for protective order. The Motion for Protective Order was not filed in bad faith. Defendants cited case law demonstrating the reasonableness of the motion. The motion was filed one minute after the new Motion to Dismiss was filed and two days after the Court approved of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The Motion for Protective Order was not filed for the purpose of delay, but rather to protect Defendants’ interest in making sure they do not have to turn over discovery until the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are addressed. Itis critical that the deficiencies are addressed because the claims in the complaint are what define the appropriate bounds of the discovery proceedings. Defendants do not want to submit to Plaintiffs’ having carte blanche in discovery without boundaries. 2 Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH Based on the foregoing, Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____ Stephen P. Hanudel (#0083486) Attorney for Defendants 124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900 Elyria, Ohio 44035 Phone: (440) 328-8973 Fax: (440) 261-4040 sph812@gmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the foregoing was delivered to all parties via the Court’s electronic filing system on May 26, 2021. /s/ Stephen P. Hanudel Stephen P. Hanudel 3 Electronically Filed 05/26/202117:45 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2263364 / BATCH