Cirotto v. Am. Self Storage of Pickerington, LLC
| Docket Number | 23 CA 14 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER CIROTTO Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN SELF STORAGE of PICKERINGTON, LLC, et al. Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Hon W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Andrew J King, J.
{¶1} Appellant Christopher Cirotto appeals the February 22, 2023 decision of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas denying his Motion for Sanctions
{¶2} Appellees are American Self Storage of Pickerington, LLC, et al.
{¶3} This action arises from a storage agreement between Appellant Christopher Cirotto and Appellees American Self Storage of Pickerington, LLC, et al.
{¶4} For purposes of this appeal, the relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶5} On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Cirotto initiated this case by filing a Complaint for injunctive relief and a motion for an emergency temporary protection order. Appellant alleged that Defendant-Appellee, American Self Storage of Pickerington, LLC, a self-storage company, was about to sell the property that he had stored on Appellee's premises. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order on the following day, restraining Appellee from selling, auctioning, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any property belonging to Appellant.
{¶6} On March 14, 2022, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss or for change of venue, arguing that Appellant was a resident of Franklin County, Appellee's facility was located in Franklin County, and that there was no connection in this case to Fairfield County. The trial court agreed and on March 15, 2022, issued an order finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter and ordered the matter transferred to Franklin County.
{¶7} On May 5, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to add Robert Leveck as a defendant in this action and for Appellee to be held in contempt of court when it became apparent that Appellee had proceeded with the sale of Appellant's property.
{¶8} Even though the venue of the original complaint was improper, the trial court found that it still had the authority to enforce its orders and proceeded with a contempt hearing on June 7, 2022. The court found that Appellee had acted in contempt of the court's March 3, 2022, Order, and issued a financial sanction of $250 (with the appropriate opportunity for Defendant to purge the contempt).
{¶9} On September 7, 2022, Appellant filed a "Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant's Attorney Blair Lewis and for Leave of Court to Submit this Motion, For Good Cause."
{¶10} The trial court, finding that "motions for sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11 are collateral to and independent of the primary action" (Martell v. Martell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2018CA00017, 2018-0hio-4927, ¶ 27) and "therefore, even though the primary action in this case had concluded, the issue of sanctions remains extant, and ripe for this Court's review." Barbato v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 5th Dist. No. 2005 CA 00044, 2005-0hio-5219, ¶ 30.
{¶11} By Judgment Entry filed December 7, 2022, the trial court found that sanctions pursuant to Civ.R. 11 and/or R.C. §2323.51 were not appropriate in this case and overruled Appellant's motion.
{¶12} On February 22, 2023, the trial court re-issued its Opinion and Entry as a Nunc Pro Tunc to include "This is a final appealable order" language.
{¶13} Appellant now appeals, assigning the following errors for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶14} "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN WRONGFULLY DISMISSING AND OVERRULING MY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS, IN THE COURTS DECEMBER 7, 2022 OPINION, ENTRY, AND ORDER, AND FURTHER "BASICALLY" STATING THAT HIS ILLICIT CONDUCT WAS OK.
IN ADDITION, THIS SAME DECEMBER 7TH ORDER WAS ALSO WRONGFULLY CONTRARY TO ALL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN A COURT REQUESTED, (NOVEMBER 3, 2022- AND AFTERWARDS, NON-ORAL HEARING), THAT ASKED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WRITTEN ARGUMENT(S); WHEREBY I SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS'S UNETHICAL AND PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL COMPELLING ARGUMENTS. I DID SUBMIT THIS TO THE COURT ON NOVEMBER 3, 2022, TO ALSO BE CONSIDERED. AND IT SEEMED TO BE SIMPLY IGNORED BY THE COURT, BECAUSE NOTHING IN IT SEEMED TO BE MENTIONED OR ADDRESSED OR EVEN CONSIDERED.
{¶15} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, BY NOT SETTING ASIDE ITS DECEMBER 7, 2022 OPINION, ENTRY, AND ORDER, AND COMING TO TERMS WITH ITS ERRORS AND WRONGFUL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THAT OPINION, ENTRY, AND ORDER. INSTEAD, THE TRIAL COURT CONTINUED TO WRONGFULLY ERROR BY NOT ADDRESSING ANYTHING OF
SUBSTANCE CONTAINED IN MY DECEMBER 21, 2022 MOTION TO SET ASIDE ITS PREVIOUS OPINION. ENTRV, [SIC] AND ORDER ... AND THE COURT JUST BASICALLY RE-ISSUED ITS ORIGINAL ERRONEOUS AND WRONGFUL OPINIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISIONS. NONE-THE-LESS, THE TRIAL COURT'S FEBRUARY 22, 2023 ORDER, IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER, WHICH I THEN USED TO FILE MY NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THIS FIFTH DISTRICT COURT ON MARCH 22, 2023, WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME THAT IS ALLOWED.
{¶16} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN WRONGFULLY ALLOWING AND ACCEPTING ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS'S RESPONSE TO MY MOTION ON OCTOBER 24, 2022. ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS'S RESPONSE TO MY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS WAS DUE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 21, 2022. YET WITH NO EXCUSE OF ANY KIND, AND WITH NO GOOD FAITH MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO DO SO ... BLAIR LEWIS WAS ALLOWED TO SUBMIT A 30-DAY LATE RESPONSE, AND THEN HAVE IT ERRONEOUSLY AND WRONGFULLY CONSIDERED, AS IF IT WERE TRUE. IT CONTAINED NO SWORN AFFIDAVIT AS TO ITS TRUTHFULNESS, NOR DID IT CONTAIN ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE MY TRUTHFUL AND RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS OF UNETHICAL AND ILLICIT BEHAVIOR ON HIS PART. NEITHER AS AN OHIO ATTORNEY, NOR AS A SWORN OFFICER OF THE COURT.
UNKNOWN REASON, THE TRIAL COURT SEEMINGLY GIVING A LICENSED ATTORNEY, (ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS), SOME EXTRA FORMS OF "PROFESSIONAL COURTESY", THAT SEEMS TO INCLUDE ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS RECEIVING EVERY CONCEIVABLE BENEFIT, OF EVERY DOUBT, AS IF WHATEVER HE AUTHORS, AND STATES, AND SUBMITS TO THE TRIAL COURT IS ACCURATE AND TRUE. ALL THE WHILE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION, BY IGNORING AND REFUSING TO CONSIDER, RELEVANT AND SUBSTANTIABLE [SIC] REFUTING MATERIAL FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT I HAVE PROVIDED TO IT). [SIC]
{¶18} "V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ALLOWING AND CONDUCTING A "MOTION FOR SANCTIONS HEARING'', FOR ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS TO ADDRESS AND ANSWER EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL SANCTIONABLE ALLEGATIONS, (AS BROUGHT FORTH IN BOTH MY MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, AS WELL AS MY WRITTEN ARQUMENT(S) [SIC] TO SUPPORT, ... CONCERNING EACH OF HIS UNETHICAL AND PROHIBITED ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS, THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY AND WRONGFULLY WAS NOT WILLING TO TAKE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TIME TO PROPERLY ADDRESS OR CONSIDER.
CONDUCT A "SANCTIONS HEARING" AND GIVE ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS THE OPPORTUNITY_ [SIC] TO ANSWER EACH AND EVERY ALLEGATION AND EXAMPLE WITH CREDIBLE ANSWERS AND CREDIBLE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. (JUST LIKE THE COURT CONDUCTED FOR THE DEFENDANTS' IN THE JUNE 7, 2022 "CONTEMPT OF COURT HEARING".
NONE-THE-LESS ... MY TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE ACCUSATIONS ARE EASILY FOUND TO BE "MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" TRUE AND ACCURATE. THEN THIS APPEAL WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN NECESSARY. WHICH FOR CIVIL ISSUES AND IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY ... RIGHT? AND IF ... MY ALLEGATIONS AND EXAMPLES COULD BE CONVINCINGLY REFUTED BY ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS IN A HEARING ... THEN SO BE IT. BUT THEY CAN'T.
HOWEVER MANY OF THESE TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS, ARE ACTUALLY VERY EASY TO BE FOUND CORRECT AND ACTIONABLE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. HOW? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE EXCUSES, OR CREDIBLE ANSWERS, THAT BLAIR LEWIS CAN GIVE ... THAT MAKE ANY CREDIBLE OR LOGICAL SENSE.
THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY NOT TAKING THE TIME TO PERFORM ITS REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE TO HAVE ATTORNEY BLAIR LEWIS COME INTO COURT, UNDER OATH, AND ANSWER EACH LEGITIMATE ACCUSATION REGARDING HIS UNETHICAL AND PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR. BLAIR LEWIS'S AUTHORED STATEMENT IN HIS UNTIMELY RESPONSE, WHERE HE BASICALLY STATES, "THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG"
... WHILE NOT REALLY ADDRESSING OR DEFENDING ANYTHING ... JUST DOES NOT SEEM TO "CUT THE JUDICIAL MUSTER."
I. - V.
{¶19} Before turning to the merits of this case, we must first address whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Appellant's Motion for Sanctions.
{¶20} Venue is a procedural matter. Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 88, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972). Civ.R. 3(C) sets out counties in which "[p]roper venue lies," but it also states, "Any action may be venued, commenced, and decided in any court in any county" (Emphasis added.) The 1970 Staff Note to Civ.R. 3 recognizes that "any...
To continue reading
Request your trial