Ohio Consumer Law Blog

Information on Ohio's Consumer Laws from Attorney Daniel Myers, Myers Law, LLC (ADVERTISMENT ONLY)

Rules are Rules: Judge Strikes Perrino Builders’ Claims Against Dan Myers


For more information about the underlying suit, please check out the initial blog post, as well as the update.

Today, a judge in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas struck (a legal term for “threw out”) the claims filed by Perrino Builders and Pat Perrino against consumer advocate Dan Myers.  The claims filed by Perrino Builders and Pat Perrino are discussed in this earlier blog post.  While not yet deciding the merits of the various competing claims involved, or Myers’s request for sanctions against Perrino Builders, Pat Perrino, and their counsel from Cleveland-area law firm Frantz Ward LLP, the Court stated that Perrino et al. failed to follow court rules, and therefore their claims were not properly made against Myers.  According to the Court, Perrino Builders and Pat Perrino “have no authority” to bring the claims against Myers in the manner they tried to bring them, and Perrino et al. cannot “add a new party [Defendant] of their choosing to the Action” without following the rules.

Because of Perrino Builders’ (or their lawyers’) failure to follow the rules, the Court ordered that “Daniel J. Myers is not a party to this action.”  Although the Court struck the claims against Myers from the docket at this point, this does not end the dispute, nor is it a final order from the Court on this matter.

“This is an important reminder to attorneys, who should and litigants:  there are rules, we have rules for a reason, and they cannot be ignored,” said Myers.

The full text of the Court’s order follows:

THE NEW PARTY COMPLAINT OF DEFTS A. PERRINO CONSTRUCTION, INC(D1) AND PAT PERRINO(D2), FILED 09/19/2016, AGAINST NEW PARTY DEFT DANIEL J. MYERS IS HEREBY STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET.  DEFTS A. PERRINO CONSTRUCTION(D1) AND PAT PERRINO(D2) DID NOT FILE A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST DANIEL J. MYERS UNDER CIV. R. 14 AND THEY DID NOT SEEK THE COURT’S LEAVE TO ADD A PARTY DEFT.  ABSENT MUCH ACTIONS SANCTIONED UNDER THE CIVIL RULES, THESE DEFTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ADD A NEW PARTY DEFT OF THEIR CHOOSING TO THE ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST HIM.  ANY SUCH CLAIMS THESE DEFTS HAVE AGAINST THIS DEFT MAY BE BROUGHT BY THEM INDEPENDENTLY IN AN ACTION AGAINST HIM. AS OF THIS ORDER, DANIEL J. MYERS IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION. THIS IS A PARTIAL AND NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RC 2505.02.  IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE ISSUED

Tell us your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on October 13, 2016 by in By Daniel Myers, Consumer Law, Ohio.

Contributors

Google + Authorship

2016 & 2014 Rising Star – Consumer Law – Super Lawyers

ADVERTISMENT ONLY–This Blog does not contain any legal advice.

%d bloggers like this: