Preview
Motion No. 5090605
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
May 16,2023 14:21
By: JOHN R. MITCHELL 0066759
Confirmation Nbr. 2858716
DAVID MARINAC ET AL CV 23 975910
vs.
Judge: SHERRIE MIDAY
DARYL TODD ET AL
Pages Filed: 32
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) THE MILLCRAFT PAPER
) COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
DARYL TODD, et al., ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
Defendants.
) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
)
Defendant, The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft”), by and through its undersigned
counsel, and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the Court for an
Order granting summary judgment against Plaintiffs, David Marinac (“Marinac”), ABC Packaging
Direct, LLC (“ABC Packaging”), and International Merchandising Group Asia, Ltd. (“IMGA”)
(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). There are no genuine issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs’ claims
against Millcraft, entitling Millcraft to judgment as a matter of law. A memorandum in support of
this Motion is attached and incorporated here by reference.
Dated: May 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John R. Mitchell______________
John R. Mitchell (0066759)
Julie A. Crocker (0081231)
Riya A. Kurian (0098947)
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
Office: 216.706.3909
Fax: 216.241.2838
j crocker@taftlaw. com
jmitchell@taftlaw.com
rkurian@taftlaw.com
Attorneys for The Millcraft Paper Company
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
) THE MILLCRAFT PAPER
DARYL TODD, et al., ) COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants. )
) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
)
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have been litigating this case for approximately three years in three different
courts and now have reached their sixth attempt. Even at this juncture, Plaintiffs fail to properly
plead their claims. Plaintiffs’ nebulous Complaint purports to assert numerous claims against
Millcraft and other defendants that are unclear and go to the crux of this Motion. Plaintiffs’
inconsistent and confusing Complaint led Millcraft to seek discovery on which claims apply to
Millcraft by propounding unambiguous requests for admissions, along with other discovery
requests, on each Plaintiff. To date, Plaintiffs have not served responses to Millcraft’s requests for
admissions or its other discovery. Under well-established Ohio law, these requests are deemed
admitted, no genuine issues of material fact exist, and Millcraft is entitled to summary judgment
as a matter of law.
For these reasons, and as discussed more fully below, Plaintiffs’ claims fail and summary
judgment should be granted in favor of Millcraft’s under Civil Rule 56(C).
2
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs first filed this suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July
16, 2020, against several defendants, but not Millcraft. (See Marinac v. Todd, et al., N.D. of Ohio
Case No. 1:20-cv-1571.) Plaintiffs thereafter amended their Complaint three times. On March 25,
2022 (in Plaintiffs’ fourth federal Complaint), Plaintiffs added Millcraft as a defendant nearly two
years after their original complaint was filed. Millcraft and the other defendants subsequently
moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal cause of action under the RICO Act of 1970 and all other state
law claims. In agreement with Millcraft’s and the other defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, the
District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claim for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and declined to hear the rest of the state law claims. (See Marinac v. Todd, et
al., N.D. of Ohio Case No. 1:20-cv-1571 (ECF No. 100).) Then, Plaintiffs initiated (for the fifth
time) a suit against Millcraft and other defendants, erroneously, in Lorain County, Ohio. The
Lorain County Court recognized and agreed with Millcraft that Plaintiffs were attempting to
circumvent their contractual obligations (which obligations required this case to be filed in
Cuyahoga County) and granted Millcraft’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Cuyahoga County.
Thus, on March 1, 2023, this case was transferred from Lorain County to Cuyahoga
County. Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to allege, among other things, that Millcraft breached its
contracts with Marinac and IMGA, and conspired with other defendants to defraud Plaintiffs and
misappropriated funds from Plaintiffs. Within a month of the transfer and opening of this matter
by Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Millcraft served discovery requests on Plaintiffs.1
1 This was also in accordance with the Court’s 3/21/2023 Journal Entry setting a CMC by phone,
which stated in pertinent part, “PARTIES SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE BEGINNING TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY.”
3
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
Specifically, on March 28, 2023, Millcraft served three separate sets of requests for admissions
(the “Requests”) on each Plaintiff. Exhibit A, Affidavit of Riya A. Kurian (“Kurian Aff.”), at 2,
Ex. 1-A, 1-B, 1-C.2 Among other things, the Requests asked Plaintiffs to admit the following:
• Counts I - VII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint do not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
(Request Nos. 1-8 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiffs
Marinac, ABC Packaging and IMGA).
Further, the Requests asked Marinac and IMGA to admit the following:
• Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from
John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC
Packaging). (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to
Plaintiff IMGA, Request No. 10 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to
Plaintiff Marinac).
In addition to the above, the Requests asked Marinac to admit the following:
• Millcraft terminated the Marinac Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis
Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m. (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request
for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac).
Under Civil Rule 36(B), Plaintiffs were required to respond to the Requests on or before
April 25, 2023, which is 28 days after March 28, 2023. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have
not responded to the Requests. Kurian Aff., at 3.
III. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can come to but one
conclusion, which is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
Civ.R. 56(C); M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65, 2012-Ohio-5336, 979 N.E.2d 1261,
2 True and accurate copies of the Requests are attached to the Affidavit of Riya A, Kurian as
Exhibit 1-A, 1-B and 1-C.
4
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
12. “[O]nly factual disputes that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
preclude the entry of a summary judgment.” Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d
215, 218-19, 520 N.E.2d 198 (1988). “The party seeking summary judgment always bears the
initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those
portions of the record which support his or her claim.” Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 674
N.E.2d 1164, 1171 (1997).
IV. LAW AND ARGUMENT
It is well-established Ohio law that “[u]nanswered admissions are considered admitted and
“conclusively established” and may be relied on when granting summary judgment. Civ.R.
36(A)(1), (B); see also, Lukacevic v. Daniels, 8th Dist. No. 107002, 2019-Ohio-102, 128 N.E.3d
845, 36 (“[T]he matter set forth in the requests for admissions is deemed admitted if they are not
answered within rule.”); Depaz v. Bahramian, 2013-Ohio-5510, 2013 WL 6672913, at *3 (1st
Dist.) (holding requests for admissions are “self-executing” without any new action required by
the requesting party and therefore summary judgment may be granted on facts deemed admitted
under Civ.R. 36); Simpson v. Ison, 2020-Ohio-1582, 2020 WL 1983758, at *1-3 (1st Dist.). “Thus,
where a party fails to timely respond to the request for admissions, those admissions become fact.”
N. Coast Com. Roofing Systems v. MGM, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106800, 2018-Ohio-4705,
124 N.E.3d 375, 12. Further, “[i]t is equally settled law that a motion for summary judgment
may be based upon the admitted matter.” Id.
As discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to or object to Millcraft’ Requests.
Kurian Aff., at 3. The Requests were served on March 28, 2023, and Plaintiffs’ responses were
due on or before April 25, 2023. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Requests, meaning each of the
Requests are deemed admitted including, as relevant to this Motion, the following:
5
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
• Plaintiffs do not allege a cause of action against Millcraft under any Counts of the
Complaint. (Request Nos. 1-8 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to
Plaintiff Marinac, Plaintiff ABC Packaging and Plaintiff IMGA).
• Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from
John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC
Packaging). (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to
Plaintiff IMGA, Request No. 10 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to
Plaintiff Marinac).
• Millcraft terminated the Marinac Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis
Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m. (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request
for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac).
Simply put, Plaintiffs have admitted that they do not allege a cause of action against
Millcraft in the Complaint. Further, they admitted substantively that Millcraft terminated the
agreements at issue in the case in June of 2020, thus Plaintiffs cannot establish the required
elements that apply to their alleged claim(s) against Millcraft. Plaintiffs’ admissions to these
Requests establish that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is legally without merit against Millcraft, there is no
material fact that exists, and, thus, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Millcraft fail as a matter of law.
Accordingly, this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of Millcraft. Depaz at *3.
V. CONCLUSION
For the these reasons, this Court should enter summary judgment for Millcraft and against
Plaintiffs on all claims brought by Plaintiffs against Millcraft because there are no genuine issues
of material fact, and Millcraft is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Millcraft respectfully
requests oral argument on this motion.
6
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
Dated: May 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John R. Mitchell______________
John R. Mitchell (0066759)
Julie A. Crocker (0081231)
Riya A. Kurian (0098947)
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
Office: 216.706.3909
Fax: 216.241.2838
jcrocker@taftlaw.com
jmitchell@taftlaw.com
rkurian@taftlaw.com
Attorneys for The Millcraft Paper Company
7
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of May, 2023, a copy of the foregoing Notice of
Appearance of Additional Counsel of Record for Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company and
Request to be Added to Electronic Notification System was filed electronically. Service of this
filing will be made pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2)(f) and Civ. R. 5(B)(3) by operation of the Court's
electronic filing system on the following counsel of record:
Thomas A. Barni
Andrew J. Yarger
DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC
Counselfor Plaintiffs David Marinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International
Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited
John E. Schiller
WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah
Dinunzio and Robert Holt
I further hereby certify that on April 3, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was served on the
following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c):
Chun Oi Chi
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Ting Yau Fu
Room 1502, Wing Tong House,
Yau Tong Estate
Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd.
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
/s/ John R. Mitchell______
John R. Mitchell
8
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) AFFIDAVIT OF RIYA A. KURIAN
) ESQ.
DARYL TODD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
STATE OF OHIO )
)SS
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA )
Riya A. Kurian, being first duly sworn upon oath, states and alleges as follows:
1. I am an associate attorney at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and am counsel for
Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft”). I am over the age of 18 years old and have
personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.
2. On March 28, 2023, on behalf of Millcraft, I served, via e-mail, three separate sets
of Requests for Admissions (“Requests”) on Plaintiffs David Marinac (“Marinac”), International
Merchandising Group Asia, Ltd. (“IMGA”) and ABC Packaging Direct, LLC (“ABC Packaging”)
(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) under Civil Rule 36(A). The Requests were served as word and PDF
documents, thus complying with the discovery rules. A true and accurate copy of the service email
sent to Plaintiffs attaching Millcraft’s Requests is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by
reference. True and accurate copies of the Requests are attached as Exhibit 1-A, 1-B and 1-C and
incorporated by reference.
3. As of the date of this affidavit, Plaintiffs have not responded to or objected to the
1
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT
A
Requests.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Dated: May 16, 2023
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 16th day of May, 2023.
My Commiselon Expire#'0
December 9. 2027
2
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
Kurian, Riya
From: Kurian, Riya
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 5:10 PM
To: tbarni@dhplaw.com; ayarger@dhplaw.com; jschiller@walterhav.com
Cc: Crocker, Julie A.; Mitchell, John R.
Subject: Marinac, et al., v. Todd, et al., Case No. CV-23-975910
Attachments: Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to IMGA.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to ABC.pdf;
Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to IMGA.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to Marinac.pdf;
Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to Marinac.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to ABC.pdf;
Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to Marinac.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to IMGA.pdf;
Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to ABC.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to Marinac -
Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to IMGA - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of
RFAs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to IMGA - Copy.DOCX;
Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to IMGA -
Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to Marinac - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of
RFPs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to Marinac - Copy.DOCX
Counsel,
Attached please find:
• Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Marinac
• Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff ABC Packaging
• Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff IMGA
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Marinac
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff ABC Packaging
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff IMGA
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff ABC Packaging
• Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff IMGA
Regards,
Riya
r, » Riya Kurian, Attorney
lent/ Litigation
Direct: 216.706.3835 | Office Ext: 73835
Taft Office: Cleveland
Jaffe has joined Taft. Now over 800 attorneys strong.
Learn more here.
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT
1
1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT
) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF
DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO
) PLAINTIFF DAVID MARINAC
Defendants. )
)
)
Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First
Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff David Marinac (“Plaintiff’) under
Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing, within twenty-eight (28) days after service
on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's written responses to these
Request for Admissions are to be served on the undersigned counsel for Defendant within twenty
eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be deemed admitted.
DEFINITONS
1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of
its parent, subsidiary or related entities.
2. “Plaintiff,” “Marinac,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, David Marinac, and all
persons acting on his behalf, including, but not limited to, attorneys and their associates,
employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and other representatives.
3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al.,
Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
4. “Party” or “parties” means any named party involved in the Lawsuit.
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT
1-A
5. “Complaint” means the Complaint filed by Marinac and other plaintiffs on
September 30, 2022, in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which was subsequently
transferred to Cuyahoga County on March 1, 2023 and is now pending in the above-captioned
case.
6. “Marinac Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into
by and between Millcraft and Marinac on or about January 8, 2020.
7. “IMGA Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by
and between Millcraft and IMGA on or about January 13, 2020.
8. “And” includes “or,” and “or” includes “and”; “any” includes “all,” and “all”
includes “any.”
All capitalized terms used, but not specifically defined, herein shall have the meanings
ascribed in the Complaint.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Any denial of a statement must fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission, and when good faith requires it, a party must qualify its answer, or deny only a part of
the matter on which an admission is requested. In such a case, the party must specify so much of
the statement as is true, and qualify or deny only the remainder. See Civ.R 36(A)(2).
2. The answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for
failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, and that the
information known or readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the
statement. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
2
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
3. If the answering party considers that a matter of which an admission has been
requested presents a genuine issue for trial, the answering party may not, on that ground alone,
object to the request. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
4. If objection is made, the reasons therefore shall be stated. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
5. The answering party shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the
reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
6. The matter of a Request for Admissions is deemed admitted unless a written answer
or objection addressed to the matter is provided within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof.
See Civ.R. 36(A)(1).
7. No statement or inference contained in any request herein shall constitute a
representation or admission of any fact or condition by Defendant.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. Admit that Count I of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2. Admit that Count II of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3. Admit that Count III of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
3
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Admit that Count IV of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Admit that Count V of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6. Admit that Count VI of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. Admit that Count VII of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Admit that Count VIII of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft..
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9. Admit that Millcraft terminated the Marinac
Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m.
ANSWER:
4
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10. Admit that Millcraft terminated the IMGA
Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel
for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging).
ANSWER:
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John R. Mitchell______________
John R. Mitchell (0066759)
Julie A. Crocker (0081231)
Riya A. Kurian (0098947)
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
Office: 216.706.3909
Fax: 216.241.2838
jmitchell@taftlaw.com
jcrocker@taftlaw. com
rkurian@taftlaw.com
Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company
5
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the
following counsel of record via electronic email, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f):
Thomas A. Barni
Andrew J. Yarger
DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC
6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 100
Cleveland, Ohio 44124
tbarni@dhplaw.com
ayarger@dhplaw.com
Counselfor Plaintiffs DavidMarinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International
Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited
John E. Schiller
WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP
1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821
jschiller@walterhav.com
Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah
Dinunzio and Robert Holt
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the
following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c):
Chun Oi Chi
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Ting Yau Fu
Room 1502, Wing Tong House,
Yau Tong Estate
Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd.
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
6
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
/s/ John R. Mitchell___________
John R. Mitchell
One of the Attorneysfor The Millcraft
Paper Company
7
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT
) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF
DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO
) PLAINTIFF INTERNATIONAL
Defendants. ) MERCHANDISING GROUP ASIA
) LIMITED
)
Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First
Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff International Merchandising
Group Asia Limited (“Plaintiff’) under Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing,
within twenty-eight (28) days after service on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff's written responses to these Request for Admissions are to be served on the
undersigned counsel for Defendant within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be
deemed admitted.
DEFINITONS
1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of
its parent, subsidiary or related entities.
2. “Plaintiff,” “IMGA,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, International
Merchandising Group Asia Limited, and all persons acting on its behalf, including, but not limited
to, attorneys and their associates, employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and
other representatives.
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT
1-B
3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al.,
Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
4. “Party” or “parties” means any named party involved in the Lawsuit.
5. “Complaint” means the Complaint filed by Marinac and other plaintiffs on
September 30, 2022, in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which was subsequently
transferred to Cuyahoga County on March 1, 2023 and is now pending in the above-captioned
case.
6. “Marinac Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into
by and between Millcraft and Marinac on or about January 8, 2020.
7. “IMGA Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by
and between Millcraft and IMGA on or about January 13, 2020.
8. “And” includes “or,” and “or” includes “and”; “any” includes “all,” and “all”
includes “any.”
All capitalized terms used, but not specifically defined, herein shall have the meanings
ascribed in the Complaint.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Any denial of a statement must fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission, and when good faith requires it, a party must qualify its answer, or deny only a part of
the matter on which an admission is requested. In such a case, the party must specify so much of
the statement as is true, and qualify or deny only the remainder. See Civ.R 36(A)(2).
2. The answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for
failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, and that the
2
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
information known or readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the
statement. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
3. If the answering party considers that a matter of which an admission has been
requested presents a genuine issue for trial, the answering party may not, on that ground alone,
object to the request. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
4. If objection is made, the reasons therefore shall be stated. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
5. The answering party shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the
reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
6. The matter of a Request for Admissions is deemed admitted unless a written answer
or objection addressed to the matter is provided within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof.
See Civ.R. 36(A)(1).
7. No statement or inference contained in any request herein shall constitute a
representation or admission of any fact or condition by Defendant.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. Admit that Count I of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2. Admit that Count II of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
3
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3. Admit that Count III of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Admit that Count IV of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Admit that Count V of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6. Admit that Count VI of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. Admit that Count VII of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Admit that Count VIII of the Complaint does
not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.
ANSWER:
4
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9. Admit that Millcraft terminated the IMGA
Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel
for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging).
ANSWER:
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John R. Mitchell______________
John R. Mitchell (0066759)
Julie A. Crocker (0081231)
Riya A. Kurian (0098947)
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
Office: 216.706.3909
Fax: 216.241.2838
jmitchell@taftlaw.com
jcrocker@taftlaw. com
rkurian@taftlaw.com
Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company
5
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the
following counsel of record via electronic email, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f):
Thomas A. Barni
Andrew J. Yarger
DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC
6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 100
Cleveland, Ohio 44124
tbarni@dhplaw.com
ayarger@dhplaw.com
Counselfor Plaintiffs DavidMarinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International
Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited
John E. Schiller
WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP
1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821
jschiller@walterhav.com
Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah
Dinunzio and Robert Holt
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the
following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c):
Chun Oi Chi
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Ting Yau Fu
Room 1502, Wing Tong House,
Yau Tong Estate
Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd.
Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden
41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng
New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R.
6
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
/s/ John R. Mitchell___________
John R. Mitchell
One of the Attorneysfor The Millcraft
Paper Company
7
Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY
v. )
) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT
) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF
DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO
) PLAINTIFF ABC PACKAGING
Defendants. ) DIRECT, LLC
)
)
Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First
Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff ABC Packaging Direct, LLC
(“Plaintiff’) under Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing, within twenty-eight
(28) days after service on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's
written responses to these Request for Admissions are to be served on the undersigned counsel for
Defendant within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be deemed admitted.
DEFINITONS
1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of
its parent, subsidiary or related entities.
2. “Plaintiff,” “ABC Packaging,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, ABC Packaging
Direct, LLC, and all persons acting on its behalf, including, but not limited to, attorneys and their
associates, employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and other representatives.
3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al.,
Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga C
Preview
Motion No. 5090605 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas May 16,2023 14:21 By: JOHN R. MITCHELL 0066759 Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 DAVID MARINAC ET AL CV 23 975910 vs. Judge: SHERRIE MIDAY DARYL TODD ET AL Pages Filed: 32 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) THE MILLCRAFT PAPER ) COMPANY’S MOTION FOR DARYL TODD, et al., ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) Defendants. ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ) Defendant, The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the Court for an Order granting summary judgment against Plaintiffs, David Marinac (“Marinac”), ABC Packaging Direct, LLC (“ABC Packaging”), and International Merchandising Group Asia, Ltd. (“IMGA”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). There are no genuine issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs’ claims against Millcraft, entitling Millcraft to judgment as a matter of law. A memorandum in support of this Motion is attached and incorporated here by reference. Dated: May 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /s/ John R. Mitchell______________ John R. Mitchell (0066759) Julie A. Crocker (0081231) Riya A. Kurian (0098947) 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Office: 216.706.3909 Fax: 216.241.2838 j crocker@taftlaw. com jmitchell@taftlaw.com rkurian@taftlaw.com Attorneys for The Millcraft Paper Company Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) THE MILLCRAFT PAPER DARYL TODD, et al., ) COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. ) ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ) I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have been litigating this case for approximately three years in three different courts and now have reached their sixth attempt. Even at this juncture, Plaintiffs fail to properly plead their claims. Plaintiffs’ nebulous Complaint purports to assert numerous claims against Millcraft and other defendants that are unclear and go to the crux of this Motion. Plaintiffs’ inconsistent and confusing Complaint led Millcraft to seek discovery on which claims apply to Millcraft by propounding unambiguous requests for admissions, along with other discovery requests, on each Plaintiff. To date, Plaintiffs have not served responses to Millcraft’s requests for admissions or its other discovery. Under well-established Ohio law, these requests are deemed admitted, no genuine issues of material fact exist, and Millcraft is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. For these reasons, and as discussed more fully below, Plaintiffs’ claims fail and summary judgment should be granted in favor of Millcraft’s under Civil Rule 56(C). 2 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs first filed this suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July 16, 2020, against several defendants, but not Millcraft. (See Marinac v. Todd, et al., N.D. of Ohio Case No. 1:20-cv-1571.) Plaintiffs thereafter amended their Complaint three times. On March 25, 2022 (in Plaintiffs’ fourth federal Complaint), Plaintiffs added Millcraft as a defendant nearly two years after their original complaint was filed. Millcraft and the other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal cause of action under the RICO Act of 1970 and all other state law claims. In agreement with Millcraft’s and the other defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, the District Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal RICO claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and declined to hear the rest of the state law claims. (See Marinac v. Todd, et al., N.D. of Ohio Case No. 1:20-cv-1571 (ECF No. 100).) Then, Plaintiffs initiated (for the fifth time) a suit against Millcraft and other defendants, erroneously, in Lorain County, Ohio. The Lorain County Court recognized and agreed with Millcraft that Plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent their contractual obligations (which obligations required this case to be filed in Cuyahoga County) and granted Millcraft’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Cuyahoga County. Thus, on March 1, 2023, this case was transferred from Lorain County to Cuyahoga County. Plaintiffs’ complaint appears to allege, among other things, that Millcraft breached its contracts with Marinac and IMGA, and conspired with other defendants to defraud Plaintiffs and misappropriated funds from Plaintiffs. Within a month of the transfer and opening of this matter by Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Millcraft served discovery requests on Plaintiffs.1 1 This was also in accordance with the Court’s 3/21/2023 Journal Entry setting a CMC by phone, which stated in pertinent part, “PARTIES SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE BEGINNING TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY.” 3 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB Specifically, on March 28, 2023, Millcraft served three separate sets of requests for admissions (the “Requests”) on each Plaintiff. Exhibit A, Affidavit of Riya A. Kurian (“Kurian Aff.”), at 2, Ex. 1-A, 1-B, 1-C.2 Among other things, the Requests asked Plaintiffs to admit the following: • Counts I - VII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint do not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. (Request Nos. 1-8 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiffs Marinac, ABC Packaging and IMGA). Further, the Requests asked Marinac and IMGA to admit the following: • Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging). (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff IMGA, Request No. 10 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac). In addition to the above, the Requests asked Marinac to admit the following: • Millcraft terminated the Marinac Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m. (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac). Under Civil Rule 36(B), Plaintiffs were required to respond to the Requests on or before April 25, 2023, which is 28 days after March 28, 2023. As of the date of this filing, Plaintiffs have not responded to the Requests. Kurian Aff., at 3. III. LEGAL STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, which is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Civ.R. 56(C); M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65, 2012-Ohio-5336, 979 N.E.2d 1261, 2 True and accurate copies of the Requests are attached to the Affidavit of Riya A, Kurian as Exhibit 1-A, 1-B and 1-C. 4 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB 12. “[O]nly factual disputes that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will preclude the entry of a summary judgment.” Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 215, 218-19, 520 N.E.2d 198 (1988). “The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record which support his or her claim.” Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 674 N.E.2d 1164, 1171 (1997). IV. LAW AND ARGUMENT It is well-established Ohio law that “[u]nanswered admissions are considered admitted and “conclusively established” and may be relied on when granting summary judgment. Civ.R. 36(A)(1), (B); see also, Lukacevic v. Daniels, 8th Dist. No. 107002, 2019-Ohio-102, 128 N.E.3d 845, 36 (“[T]he matter set forth in the requests for admissions is deemed admitted if they are not answered within rule.”); Depaz v. Bahramian, 2013-Ohio-5510, 2013 WL 6672913, at *3 (1st Dist.) (holding requests for admissions are “self-executing” without any new action required by the requesting party and therefore summary judgment may be granted on facts deemed admitted under Civ.R. 36); Simpson v. Ison, 2020-Ohio-1582, 2020 WL 1983758, at *1-3 (1st Dist.). “Thus, where a party fails to timely respond to the request for admissions, those admissions become fact.” N. Coast Com. Roofing Systems v. MGM, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106800, 2018-Ohio-4705, 124 N.E.3d 375, 12. Further, “[i]t is equally settled law that a motion for summary judgment may be based upon the admitted matter.” Id. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to or object to Millcraft’ Requests. Kurian Aff., at 3. The Requests were served on March 28, 2023, and Plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before April 25, 2023. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Requests, meaning each of the Requests are deemed admitted including, as relevant to this Motion, the following: 5 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB • Plaintiffs do not allege a cause of action against Millcraft under any Counts of the Complaint. (Request Nos. 1-8 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac, Plaintiff ABC Packaging and Plaintiff IMGA). • Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging). (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff IMGA, Request No. 10 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac). • Millcraft terminated the Marinac Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m. (Request No. 9 in Millcraft’s First Set of Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac). Simply put, Plaintiffs have admitted that they do not allege a cause of action against Millcraft in the Complaint. Further, they admitted substantively that Millcraft terminated the agreements at issue in the case in June of 2020, thus Plaintiffs cannot establish the required elements that apply to their alleged claim(s) against Millcraft. Plaintiffs’ admissions to these Requests establish that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is legally without merit against Millcraft, there is no material fact that exists, and, thus, all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Millcraft fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of Millcraft. Depaz at *3. V. CONCLUSION For the these reasons, this Court should enter summary judgment for Millcraft and against Plaintiffs on all claims brought by Plaintiffs against Millcraft because there are no genuine issues of material fact, and Millcraft is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Millcraft respectfully requests oral argument on this motion. 6 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB Dated: May 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /s/ John R. Mitchell______________ John R. Mitchell (0066759) Julie A. Crocker (0081231) Riya A. Kurian (0098947) 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Office: 216.706.3909 Fax: 216.241.2838 jcrocker@taftlaw.com jmitchell@taftlaw.com rkurian@taftlaw.com Attorneys for The Millcraft Paper Company 7 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 16th day of May, 2023, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance of Additional Counsel of Record for Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company and Request to be Added to Electronic Notification System was filed electronically. Service of this filing will be made pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2)(f) and Civ. R. 5(B)(3) by operation of the Court's electronic filing system on the following counsel of record: Thomas A. Barni Andrew J. Yarger DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC Counselfor Plaintiffs David Marinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited John E. Schiller WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah Dinunzio and Robert Holt I further hereby certify that on April 3, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c): Chun Oi Chi Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. Ting Yau Fu Room 1502, Wing Tong House, Yau Tong Estate Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R. Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd. Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. /s/ John R. Mitchell______ John R. Mitchell 8 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF RIYA A. KURIAN ) ESQ. DARYL TODD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) STATE OF OHIO ) )SS COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) Riya A. Kurian, being first duly sworn upon oath, states and alleges as follows: 1. I am an associate attorney at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and am counsel for Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft”). I am over the age of 18 years old and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 2. On March 28, 2023, on behalf of Millcraft, I served, via e-mail, three separate sets of Requests for Admissions (“Requests”) on Plaintiffs David Marinac (“Marinac”), International Merchandising Group Asia, Ltd. (“IMGA”) and ABC Packaging Direct, LLC (“ABC Packaging”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) under Civil Rule 36(A). The Requests were served as word and PDF documents, thus complying with the discovery rules. A true and accurate copy of the service email sent to Plaintiffs attaching Millcraft’s Requests is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference. True and accurate copies of the Requests are attached as Exhibit 1-A, 1-B and 1-C and incorporated by reference. 3. As of the date of this affidavit, Plaintiffs have not responded to or objected to the 1 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT A Requests. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. Dated: May 16, 2023 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of May, 2023. My Commiselon Expire#'0 December 9. 2027 2 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB Kurian, Riya From: Kurian, Riya Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 5:10 PM To: tbarni@dhplaw.com; ayarger@dhplaw.com; jschiller@walterhav.com Cc: Crocker, Julie A.; Mitchell, John R. Subject: Marinac, et al., v. Todd, et al., Case No. CV-23-975910 Attachments: Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to IMGA.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to ABC.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to IMGA.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to Marinac.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to Marinac.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to ABC.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to Marinac.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to IMGA.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to ABC.pdf; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to Marinac - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to IMGA - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to IMGA - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to IMGA - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of ROGs to Marinac - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFPs to ABC - Copy.DOCX; Millcraft_s First Set of RFAs to Marinac - Copy.DOCX Counsel, Attached please find: • Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Marinac • Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff ABC Packaging • Millcraft's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff IMGA • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff Marinac • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff ABC Packaging • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff IMGA • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff Marinac • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff ABC Packaging • Millcraft's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff IMGA Regards, Riya r, » Riya Kurian, Attorney lent/ Litigation Direct: 216.706.3835 | Office Ext: 73835 Taft Office: Cleveland Jaffe has joined Taft. Now over 800 attorneys strong. Learn more here. Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT 1 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT ) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ) PLAINTIFF DAVID MARINAC Defendants. ) ) ) Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff David Marinac (“Plaintiff’) under Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing, within twenty-eight (28) days after service on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's written responses to these Request for Admissions are to be served on the undersigned counsel for Defendant within twenty eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be deemed admitted. DEFINITONS 1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of its parent, subsidiary or related entities. 2. “Plaintiff,” “Marinac,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, David Marinac, and all persons acting on his behalf, including, but not limited to, attorneys and their associates, employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and other representatives. 3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al., Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. 4. “Party” or “parties” means any named party involved in the Lawsuit. Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT 1-A 5. “Complaint” means the Complaint filed by Marinac and other plaintiffs on September 30, 2022, in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which was subsequently transferred to Cuyahoga County on March 1, 2023 and is now pending in the above-captioned case. 6. “Marinac Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by and between Millcraft and Marinac on or about January 8, 2020. 7. “IMGA Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by and between Millcraft and IMGA on or about January 13, 2020. 8. “And” includes “or,” and “or” includes “and”; “any” includes “all,” and “all” includes “any.” All capitalized terms used, but not specifically defined, herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Complaint. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Any denial of a statement must fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires it, a party must qualify its answer, or deny only a part of the matter on which an admission is requested. In such a case, the party must specify so much of the statement as is true, and qualify or deny only the remainder. See Civ.R 36(A)(2). 2. The answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, and that the information known or readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the statement. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 2 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB 3. If the answering party considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial, the answering party may not, on that ground alone, object to the request. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 4. If objection is made, the reasons therefore shall be stated. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 5. The answering party shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 6. The matter of a Request for Admissions is deemed admitted unless a written answer or objection addressed to the matter is provided within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof. See Civ.R. 36(A)(1). 7. No statement or inference contained in any request herein shall constitute a representation or admission of any fact or condition by Defendant. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. Admit that Count I of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2. Admit that Count II of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3. Admit that Count III of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: 3 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Admit that Count IV of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Admit that Count V of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6. Admit that Count VI of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. Admit that Count VII of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Admit that Count VIII of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft.. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9. Admit that Millcraft terminated the Marinac Agreement on June 25, 2020 via email from Travis Mlakar to David Marinac at 8:11 p.m. ANSWER: 4 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10. Admit that Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging). ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, /s/ John R. Mitchell______________ John R. Mitchell (0066759) Julie A. Crocker (0081231) Riya A. Kurian (0098947) 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Office: 216.706.3909 Fax: 216.241.2838 jmitchell@taftlaw.com jcrocker@taftlaw. com rkurian@taftlaw.com Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company 5 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following counsel of record via electronic email, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f): Thomas A. Barni Andrew J. Yarger DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC 6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 100 Cleveland, Ohio 44124 tbarni@dhplaw.com ayarger@dhplaw.com Counselfor Plaintiffs DavidMarinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited John E. Schiller WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821 jschiller@walterhav.com Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah Dinunzio and Robert Holt I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c): Chun Oi Chi Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. Ting Yau Fu Room 1502, Wing Tong House, Yau Tong Estate Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R. Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd. Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. 6 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB /s/ John R. Mitchell___________ John R. Mitchell One of the Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company 7 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT ) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ) PLAINTIFF INTERNATIONAL Defendants. ) MERCHANDISING GROUP ASIA ) LIMITED ) Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff International Merchandising Group Asia Limited (“Plaintiff’) under Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing, within twenty-eight (28) days after service on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's written responses to these Request for Admissions are to be served on the undersigned counsel for Defendant within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be deemed admitted. DEFINITONS 1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of its parent, subsidiary or related entities. 2. “Plaintiff,” “IMGA,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, International Merchandising Group Asia Limited, and all persons acting on its behalf, including, but not limited to, attorneys and their associates, employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and other representatives. Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB EXHIBIT 1-B 3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al., Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. 4. “Party” or “parties” means any named party involved in the Lawsuit. 5. “Complaint” means the Complaint filed by Marinac and other plaintiffs on September 30, 2022, in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, which was subsequently transferred to Cuyahoga County on March 1, 2023 and is now pending in the above-captioned case. 6. “Marinac Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by and between Millcraft and Marinac on or about January 8, 2020. 7. “IMGA Agreement” means the Independent Contractor Agreement entered into by and between Millcraft and IMGA on or about January 13, 2020. 8. “And” includes “or,” and “or” includes “and”; “any” includes “all,” and “all” includes “any.” All capitalized terms used, but not specifically defined, herein shall have the meanings ascribed in the Complaint. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Any denial of a statement must fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires it, a party must qualify its answer, or deny only a part of the matter on which an admission is requested. In such a case, the party must specify so much of the statement as is true, and qualify or deny only the remainder. See Civ.R 36(A)(2). 2. The answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that it has made a reasonable inquiry, and that the 2 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB information known or readily obtainable by it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the statement. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 3. If the answering party considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial, the answering party may not, on that ground alone, object to the request. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 4. If objection is made, the reasons therefore shall be stated. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 5. The answering party shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. See Civ.R. 36(A)(2). 6. The matter of a Request for Admissions is deemed admitted unless a written answer or objection addressed to the matter is provided within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof. See Civ.R. 36(A)(1). 7. No statement or inference contained in any request herein shall constitute a representation or admission of any fact or condition by Defendant. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1. Admit that Count I of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2. Admit that Count II of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: 3 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3. Admit that Count III of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4. Admit that Count IV of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5. Admit that Count V of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6. Admit that Count VI of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7. Admit that Count VII of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8. Admit that Count VIII of the Complaint does not allege a cause of action against Millcraft. ANSWER: 4 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9. Admit that Millcraft terminated the IMGA Agreement on June 26, 2020 via correspondence from John R. Mitchell to James Sammon (counsel for David Marinac, IMGA, and ABC Packaging). ANSWER: Respectfully submitted, /s/ John R. Mitchell______________ John R. Mitchell (0066759) Julie A. Crocker (0081231) Riya A. Kurian (0098947) 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302 Office: 216.706.3909 Fax: 216.241.2838 jmitchell@taftlaw.com jcrocker@taftlaw. com rkurian@taftlaw.com Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company 5 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following counsel of record via electronic email, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f): Thomas A. Barni Andrew J. Yarger DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER, LLC 6105 Parkland Boulevard, Suite 100 Cleveland, Ohio 44124 tbarni@dhplaw.com ayarger@dhplaw.com Counselfor Plaintiffs DavidMarinac, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and International Merchandising Group, Asia, Limited John E. Schiller WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821 jschiller@walterhav.com Attorneys for Defendants Daryl Z. Todd, Michelle Todd, Stephanie Patterson, Sarah Dinunzio and Robert Holt I hereby certify that on March 28, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following parties via regular U.S. Mail, pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c): Chun Oi Chi Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. Ting Yau Fu Room 1502, Wing Tong House, Yau Tong Estate Kowloon Hong Kong, S.A.R. Asia Packaging Solutions Ltd. Flat D, 29/F, Block 2, Lido Garden 41-63 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng New Territories Hong Kong, S.A.R. 6 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB /s/ John R. Mitchell___________ John R. Mitchell One of the Attorneysfor The Millcraft Paper Company 7 Electronically Filed 05/16/2023 14:21 / MOTION / CV 23 975910 / Confirmation Nbr. 2858716 / CLMHB IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO DAVID MARINAC, et al., ) Case No. CV-23-975910 ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge SHERRIE MIDAY v. ) ) DEFENDANT THE MILLCRAFT ) PAPER COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF DARYL TODD, et al., ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ) PLAINTIFF ABC PACKAGING Defendants. ) DIRECT, LLC ) ) Defendant The Millcraft Paper Company (“Millcraft” or “Defendant”) propounds its First Request for Admissions (“Request for Admissions”) on Plaintiff ABC Packaging Direct, LLC (“Plaintiff’) under Ohio Civ. R. 26 and 36 to be answered fully, in writing, within twenty-eight (28) days after service on Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's written responses to these Request for Admissions are to be served on the undersigned counsel for Defendant within twenty-eight (28) days after service hereof or shall be deemed admitted. DEFINITONS 1. “Millcraft” or “Defendant” means Defendant Millcraft Paper Company and any of its parent, subsidiary or related entities. 2. “Plaintiff,” “ABC Packaging,” “You,” or “Your” means Plaintiff, ABC Packaging Direct, LLC, and all persons acting on its behalf, including, but not limited to, attorneys and their associates, employees, independent contractors, investigators, agents and other representatives. 3. “Lawsuit” means the case captioned, DavidMarinac, et al. v. Daryl Todd, et al., Case No. CV-23-975910, pending in the Cuyahoga C