Ayad v. Radio One Inc., 90638 (10-23-2008)
This text of 2008 Ohio 5487 (Ayad v. Radio One Inc., 90638 (10-23-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellants commenced this action against Radio One, Inc. ("Radio One") and six other defendants on September 10, 2004.1 The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, wherein the federal district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to all federal claims, dismissed the remaining state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and remanded the matter back to state court.
{¶ 3} The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of all defendants on all remaining claims, except as to the breach of contract claim, which the trial court found could proceed against Radio One only. Thereafter, Radio One moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. *Page 3
{¶ 4} Appellants filed an appeal challenging the trial court's granting of judgment on the pleadings, granting of summary judgment, and certain interlocutory rulings. This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in Ayad v. Radio One, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 88031,
{¶ 5} On August 22, 2007, appellants filed a motion for default judgment against defendants John Does. These defendants were identified in the complaint as "John Does unnamed and/or unidentified defendants (except as `Jewish' by WERE 1300 AM executives Glover, Bivens, and Bush) and as `terrorists' by plaintiffs known only to defendants Radio One, Inc." On August 29, 2007, the trial court denied the motion, referring to this court's decision in Ayad, supra. Appellants' appeal from this ruling was sua sponte dismissed by this court on October 12, 2007.
{¶ 6} Appellees, Radio One, WERE, Bevins, Glover, Hamilton, and Hughes, filed a request for sanctions. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion on October 9, 2007. The trial court imposed sanctions against appellants, jointly and severally, and awarded appellees $1,397.50 plus interest beginning on October 8, 2007, and court costs. Appellants now appeal this ruling.
{¶ 7} We note that appellees also attempted to appeal the trial court's August 29, 2007 order regarding their motion for default judgment. Per this court's prior order, the trial court's August 29, 2007 entry cannot be considered in this appeal. Appellants' first assignment of error pertaining to said order is stricken. *Page 4
{¶ 8} Appellants' second assignment of error provides as follows: "The trial court erred in granting sanctions against the plaintiffs including but not limited to that the trial court's decision is contrary to the laws and precedents as established by the Supreme Court of Ohio."
{¶ 9} Trial courts retain jurisdiction to resolve collateral matters, such as a motion for sanctions, pursuant to Civ. R. 11 or R.C.
{¶ 10} In this matter, appellees moved for sanctions on the grounds that appellants had engaged in frivolous conduct by filing a motion for default judgment. The motion for default was filed despite the fact that the trial court had granted summary judgment to Radio One on the breach of contract claim and, in rendering judgment on the pleadings, had dismissed all remaining claims against all defendants. Further, the trial court's judgment had been affirmed by this court.
{¶ 11} Nevertheless, appellants argue that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions against them. Because appellants have failed to file a transcript of the sanctions hearing, we *Page 5
must presume the regularity of those proceedings. See Soler v. Evans,St. Clair Kelsey, Franklin App. No. 04AP-314,
{¶ 12} Upon our review, we find the record in this case supports a finding that appellants, in filing their motion for default judgment after a final judgment had been rendered, engaged in frivolous conduct. See Civ. R. 11 and R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellants costs herein taxed.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 Ohio 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayad-v-radio-one-inc-90638-10-23-2008-ohioctapp-2008.