Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
June 13,2022 15:31
By: STEPHEN P. HANUDEL 0083486
Confirmation Nbr. 2574755
ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483
LIVING ET AL
vs.
Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY
D.J. KEEHANETAL
Pages Filed: 5
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / 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. )
) RESPONSE TO MOTION
D.J. KEEHAN ) TO COMPEL
)
and )
)
WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC, et al )
)
Defendants )
Defendants D.J. Keehan, Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC (“WSC”), Signature
Building Concepts, LLC (“SBC”), and Online Communications, LLC (“Online”), by and
through undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiffs’ latest Motion to Compel.
Plaintiffs are proving what Defendants have been saying allalong. That is,
Plaintiffs are engaging a vexatious fishing expedition to prolong a frivolous lawsuit that
was instituted out of spite to inflict as much stress, inconvenience, and waste of time on
DJ Keehan and his businesses, not to mention drive up his legal fees.
This Court has already held a four-hour court hearing on October 20, 2021 on
Plaintiffs’ first motion to compel regarding DJ Keehan and WSC and made a ruling.
Keehan and WSC complied with that ruling. The Court has also held a two-hour court
hearing on April 29, 2022 on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel regarding SBC and Online and
made a ruling. SBC and Online have complied with that ruling.
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH
The Court previously established May 2, 2022 as the discovery cutoff date. As of
that date, Plaintiffs had engaged in discovery for roughly a year. In that time, they have
received a copious number of documents1 and have deposed DJ Keehan three times in
various capacities.
In the court order after the October 20, 2021 hearing, the Court ruled that
Plaintiffs were not entitled to documents from Online and SBC because they were
irrelevant. What was Traci's response? Amend the complaint to add Online and SBC as
parties even though the amended complaint offered no new facts that made Online and
SBC relevant to the condo construction contract between the Trust and WSC.
Defendants Keehan and WSC argued then that Traci was simply seeking to get around
the Court's order limiting his discovery so he could keep fishing. Time has proven
Keehan and WSC correct.
In the court order after the April 29, 2022 hearing, the Court ruled by restricting
the scope of Plaintiffs' document request to what was relevant to the property owned by
the Trust. The Court even ruled out two of Plaintiffs' requests. What was Traci's
response? File a motion to compel casting an absurdly wide net to obtain documents,
including as far back as 2017, that are wholly irrelevant to the condo construction
contract that was executed on December 8, 2019.
Once again, Traci issimply trying to find another angle to which he can keep
badgering and harassing Keehan and his businesses, hoping to depose him again and
again. He will keep doing this until the Court stops him. As Defendants pointed out in
their Motion for Protective Order, Traci has spent a grand total of no more than five
1 The first production required five emails to send all the documents as PDF attachments.
2
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH
minutes discussing the warranty in Keehan's depositions. Meanwhile, the other 11
hours slog on and on about Keehan's business transactions that had no detrimental
effect on the Trust's ownership of the condo and its ability to sell the condo for $60,000
more than the purchase price.
In their motion to compel, Plaintiffs attack undersigned counsel for characterizing
this case as a simple construction contract case. The reason why undersigned counsel
keeps saying that this case is a simple construction contract case is because itis a
simple construction contract case. The Trust signed a purchase agreement with WSC,
which fulfilled its terms of the contract. All of Plaintiffs' gripes stem from this contractual
relationship, which means, per the case law cited in Defendants' summary judgment
motion, Plaintiffs cannot assert fraud. Even if they could, they have yet to articulate any
fraud against Defendants, let alone articulate how they have been damaged. The only
“fraud” Plaintiffs keep bringing up is the concrete patio issue, which they have already
recovered from the concrete contractor.
Also, in the last court hearing, Traci kept conflating facts and asserting others out
of context. He said that Defendants violated city code. That is 100% false. The only city
code violation was the concrete patio, which was by the concrete contractor. Plaintiffs'
transaction with the concrete contractor was separate. Sure enough, Plaintiff separately
sued the concrete contractor in Rocky River Municipal Court, settled, and recovered.
By the way, Defendants continue to object to Traci's participation in this case
because he has no standing, thus is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. As
argued in the Defendants' summary motion, Traci had no ownership interest in the
condo and was not a signatory to the purchase agreement. He falsely stated in the
3
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH
complaint that he was a co-owner, which is flatly not true. He did so to artificially give
himself standing so he could practice law without an active license.
This Court is not allowed to permit Traci to violate ORC 4705.07 by engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law. The Court must disallow his participation as far as
engaging in litigation that really serves the interest of the Trust.
Defendants urge the Court to not be misdirected by Rossi stating in open court
that she has always been actively involved in the case. That does not excuse Traci
doing all the litigation work when he is not a proper party and does not have an active
license to practice law. The deposition transcripts clearly show that Traci has done all
the questioning. He is the one who engages with the Court in phone conferences and in
court hearings on behalf of all the Plaintiffs. The record speaks for itself and the Court
can judge for itself based on itsown experiences so far in this case.
Plaintiffs have had the past year to do discovery. This Court established a cutoff
date of May 2, 2022. The Court needs to enforce itsorders and not allow Plaintiffs to
keep going and going. There is nothing that Plaintiffs seek that they could not have
thought of in their prior requests. They are simply looking for reasons to keep prolonging
this case because all the information they have obtained so far does not prove breach
of contract or fraud.
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons in Defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order filed May 24, 2022, Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel.
4
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____
Stephen P. Hanudel (#0083486)
124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900
Elyria, Ohio 44035
Phone: (440) 328-8973
Fax: (440) 261-4040
sph812@gmail.com
Attorney for D.J. Keehan, Westlake Shadow
Creek, LLC, Signature Building Concepts, LLC,
and Online Communications, LLC
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 June 13, 2022.
/s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____
Stephen P. Hanudel
5
Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH
Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas BRIEF IN OPPOSITION June 13,2022 15:31 By: STEPHEN P. HANUDEL 0083486 Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 ASSUNTA ROSSI PERSONALTY REVOCABLE CV 21 944483 LIVING ET AL vs. Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY D.J. KEEHANETAL Pages Filed: 5 Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / 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. ) ) RESPONSE TO MOTION D.J. KEEHAN ) TO COMPEL ) and ) ) WESTLAKE SHADOW CREEK, LLC, et al ) ) Defendants ) Defendants D.J. Keehan, Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC (“WSC”), Signature Building Concepts, LLC (“SBC”), and Online Communications, LLC (“Online”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Plaintiffs’ latest Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs are proving what Defendants have been saying allalong. That is, Plaintiffs are engaging a vexatious fishing expedition to prolong a frivolous lawsuit that was instituted out of spite to inflict as much stress, inconvenience, and waste of time on DJ Keehan and his businesses, not to mention drive up his legal fees. This Court has already held a four-hour court hearing on October 20, 2021 on Plaintiffs’ first motion to compel regarding DJ Keehan and WSC and made a ruling. Keehan and WSC complied with that ruling. The Court has also held a two-hour court hearing on April 29, 2022 on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel regarding SBC and Online and made a ruling. SBC and Online have complied with that ruling. Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH The Court previously established May 2, 2022 as the discovery cutoff date. As of that date, Plaintiffs had engaged in discovery for roughly a year. In that time, they have received a copious number of documents1 and have deposed DJ Keehan three times in various capacities. In the court order after the October 20, 2021 hearing, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs were not entitled to documents from Online and SBC because they were irrelevant. What was Traci's response? Amend the complaint to add Online and SBC as parties even though the amended complaint offered no new facts that made Online and SBC relevant to the condo construction contract between the Trust and WSC. Defendants Keehan and WSC argued then that Traci was simply seeking to get around the Court's order limiting his discovery so he could keep fishing. Time has proven Keehan and WSC correct. In the court order after the April 29, 2022 hearing, the Court ruled by restricting the scope of Plaintiffs' document request to what was relevant to the property owned by the Trust. The Court even ruled out two of Plaintiffs' requests. What was Traci's response? File a motion to compel casting an absurdly wide net to obtain documents, including as far back as 2017, that are wholly irrelevant to the condo construction contract that was executed on December 8, 2019. Once again, Traci issimply trying to find another angle to which he can keep badgering and harassing Keehan and his businesses, hoping to depose him again and again. He will keep doing this until the Court stops him. As Defendants pointed out in their Motion for Protective Order, Traci has spent a grand total of no more than five 1 The first production required five emails to send all the documents as PDF attachments. 2 Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH minutes discussing the warranty in Keehan's depositions. Meanwhile, the other 11 hours slog on and on about Keehan's business transactions that had no detrimental effect on the Trust's ownership of the condo and its ability to sell the condo for $60,000 more than the purchase price. In their motion to compel, Plaintiffs attack undersigned counsel for characterizing this case as a simple construction contract case. The reason why undersigned counsel keeps saying that this case is a simple construction contract case is because itis a simple construction contract case. The Trust signed a purchase agreement with WSC, which fulfilled its terms of the contract. All of Plaintiffs' gripes stem from this contractual relationship, which means, per the case law cited in Defendants' summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs cannot assert fraud. Even if they could, they have yet to articulate any fraud against Defendants, let alone articulate how they have been damaged. The only “fraud” Plaintiffs keep bringing up is the concrete patio issue, which they have already recovered from the concrete contractor. Also, in the last court hearing, Traci kept conflating facts and asserting others out of context. He said that Defendants violated city code. That is 100% false. The only city code violation was the concrete patio, which was by the concrete contractor. Plaintiffs' transaction with the concrete contractor was separate. Sure enough, Plaintiff separately sued the concrete contractor in Rocky River Municipal Court, settled, and recovered. By the way, Defendants continue to object to Traci's participation in this case because he has no standing, thus is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. As argued in the Defendants' summary motion, Traci had no ownership interest in the condo and was not a signatory to the purchase agreement. He falsely stated in the 3 Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH complaint that he was a co-owner, which is flatly not true. He did so to artificially give himself standing so he could practice law without an active license. This Court is not allowed to permit Traci to violate ORC 4705.07 by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court must disallow his participation as far as engaging in litigation that really serves the interest of the Trust. Defendants urge the Court to not be misdirected by Rossi stating in open court that she has always been actively involved in the case. That does not excuse Traci doing all the litigation work when he is not a proper party and does not have an active license to practice law. The deposition transcripts clearly show that Traci has done all the questioning. He is the one who engages with the Court in phone conferences and in court hearings on behalf of all the Plaintiffs. The record speaks for itself and the Court can judge for itself based on itsown experiences so far in this case. Plaintiffs have had the past year to do discovery. This Court established a cutoff date of May 2, 2022. The Court needs to enforce itsorders and not allow Plaintiffs to keep going and going. There is nothing that Plaintiffs seek that they could not have thought of in their prior requests. They are simply looking for reasons to keep prolonging this case because all the information they have obtained so far does not prove breach of contract or fraud. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons in Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order filed May 24, 2022, Defendants urge the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. 4 Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____ Stephen P. Hanudel (#0083486) 124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900 Elyria, Ohio 44035 Phone: (440) 328-8973 Fax: (440) 261-4040 sph812@gmail.com Attorney for D.J. Keehan, Westlake Shadow Creek, LLC, Signature Building Concepts, LLC, and Online Communications, LLC 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 June 13, 2022. /s/ Stephen P. Hanudel____ Stephen P. Hanudel 5 Electronically Filed 06/13/2022 15:31 / BRIEF / CV 21 944483 / Confirmation Nbr. 2574755 / BATCH