On January 30, 2017 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for OTHER CIVIL
in the District Court of Franklin County.
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032
0D503 - V38
IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
GENERAL DIVISION
Steed Hammond Paul, Inc., :
Plaintiff, : Case No. 17-CV-001032
vs. : Judge Jeffrey M. Brown
Berardi Partners, Inc., :
Defendants. 3
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
BROWN, J.
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for More Definite Statement and
Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Berardi Partners, Inc. (“Berardi”), both motions
being filed on February 27, 2017. Plaintiff Steed Hammond Paul, Inc. (“SHP”) filed a
Memorandum in Opposition on March 6, 2017. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
SHP filed a three-count complaint against Berardi for claims arising out of Berardi’s
alleged breach of contractual obligations. See, e.g. Compl. 4. SHP neither attached a copy of the
contract to its complaint nor explained the reason for omitting the contract as required by Civ.R.
10(D)(1). Consequently, Berardi moved pursuant to Civ.R. 12(E) for an order compelling SHP to
provide a more definite statement and amend its complaint to include a copy of the contract which
allegedly gives rise to SHP’s claims. Berardi claims that a copy of the contract is necessary in
order to properly formulate its Answer to the Complaint.
SHP filed a Memorandum in Opposition and attached “documents evidencing in part the
parties’ contract.” SHP states that “[a]lthough such documents were exhibits in an earlier trial
involving the parties,” it attached the documents to its responsive memo “in the interest of quicklyFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032
0D503 - V39
disposing of Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement.” SHP claims that since it has
provided Berardi with documents evidencing the parties’ contract via attachment to its
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for More Definite statement, the motion is now moot
and should be overruled. The Court disagrees.
Simply attaching contract documents to a memorandum in opposition to a motion for more
definite statement that should have been attached to a complaint under Civ.R. 10(D)(1) is an
insufficient method of remediating prior pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., Westmoreland v. Valley
Homes Mut. Hous. Corp., 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 328 N.E.2d 406 (1975). To be sure, Civ.R. 7(A)
states that there shall be a complaint, answer, reply to counterclaim, answer to cross-claim, third-
party complaint, third-party answer. "No other pleading shall be allowed." Thus, the Court finds
that SHP’s attachment of the documents to its response to a motion that SHP alleges creates the
contractual relationship between the parties that gives rise to the claims in this case does not cause
the documents to be incorporated into the pleadings
Accordingly, Berardi’s Motion for More Definite Statement is hereby GRANTED. SHP
shall file its Amended Complaint with the alleged contractual documents upon which the claims
are based attached within 14 days of the date of this Entry. Berardi shall move, plead, or otherwise
respond within 14 days of service of the Amended Complaint. Berardi’s Motion for Extension of
Time as DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies electronically to
All counsel of recordFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032
0D503 - v40
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 03-16-2017
Case Title: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI PARTNERS INC
Case Number: 17CV001032
Type: ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
Dah MY bane
/s/ Judge Jeffrey M. Brown
Electronically signed on 2017-Mar-16 page 3 of 3Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032
0D503 - V4l1
Court Disposition
Case Number: 17CV001032
Case Style: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI
PARTNERS INC
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 17CV0010322017-02-2799960000
Document Title: 02-27-2017-MOTION - DEFENDANT: BERARDI
PARTNERS INC - DFNDT FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
2. Motion CMS Document Id: 17CV0010322017-02-2799950000
Document Title: 02-27-2017-MOTION TO EXTEND TIME -
DEFENDANT: BERARDI PARTNERS INC
Disposition: MOTION IS MOOT
Document Filed Date
March 16, 2017
Case Filing Date
January 30, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032 0D503 - V38 IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION Steed Hammond Paul, Inc., : Plaintiff, : Case No. 17-CV-001032 vs. : Judge Jeffrey M. Brown Berardi Partners, Inc., : Defendants. 3 ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BROWN, J. This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendant Berardi Partners, Inc. (“Berardi”), both motions being filed on February 27, 2017. Plaintiff Steed Hammond Paul, Inc. (“SHP”) filed a Memorandum in Opposition on March 6, 2017. The matter is now ripe for adjudication. SHP filed a three-count complaint against Berardi for claims arising out of Berardi’s alleged breach of contractual obligations. See, e.g. Compl. 4. SHP neither attached a copy of the contract to its complaint nor explained the reason for omitting the contract as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(1). Consequently, Berardi moved pursuant to Civ.R. 12(E) for an order compelling SHP to provide a more definite statement and amend its complaint to include a copy of the contract which allegedly gives rise to SHP’s claims. Berardi claims that a copy of the contract is necessary in order to properly formulate its Answer to the Complaint. SHP filed a Memorandum in Opposition and attached “documents evidencing in part the parties’ contract.” SHP states that “[a]lthough such documents were exhibits in an earlier trial involving the parties,” it attached the documents to its responsive memo “in the interest of quicklyFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032 0D503 - V39 disposing of Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement.” SHP claims that since it has provided Berardi with documents evidencing the parties’ contract via attachment to its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for More Definite statement, the motion is now moot and should be overruled. The Court disagrees. Simply attaching contract documents to a memorandum in opposition to a motion for more definite statement that should have been attached to a complaint under Civ.R. 10(D)(1) is an insufficient method of remediating prior pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., Westmoreland v. Valley Homes Mut. Hous. Corp., 42 Ohio St.2d 291, 328 N.E.2d 406 (1975). To be sure, Civ.R. 7(A) states that there shall be a complaint, answer, reply to counterclaim, answer to cross-claim, third- party complaint, third-party answer. "No other pleading shall be allowed." Thus, the Court finds that SHP’s attachment of the documents to its response to a motion that SHP alleges creates the contractual relationship between the parties that gives rise to the claims in this case does not cause the documents to be incorporated into the pleadings Accordingly, Berardi’s Motion for More Definite Statement is hereby GRANTED. SHP shall file its Amended Complaint with the alleged contractual documents upon which the claims are based attached within 14 days of the date of this Entry. Berardi shall move, plead, or otherwise respond within 14 days of service of the Amended Complaint. Berardi’s Motion for Extension of Time as DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Copies electronically to All counsel of recordFranklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032 0D503 - v40 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 03-16-2017 Case Title: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI PARTNERS INC Case Number: 17CV001032 Type: ENTRY It Is So Ordered. Dah MY bane /s/ Judge Jeffrey M. Brown Electronically signed on 2017-Mar-16 page 3 of 3Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Mar 16 3:14 PM-17CV001032 0D503 - V4l1 Court Disposition Case Number: 17CV001032 Case Style: STEED HAMMOND PAUL INC -VS- BERARDI PARTNERS INC Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 17CV0010322017-02-2799960000 Document Title: 02-27-2017-MOTION - DEFENDANT: BERARDI PARTNERS INC - DFNDT FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Disposition: MOTION GRANTED 2. Motion CMS Document Id: 17CV0010322017-02-2799950000 Document Title: 02-27-2017-MOTION TO EXTEND TIME - DEFENDANT: BERARDI PARTNERS INC Disposition: MOTION IS MOOT