Parkview Federal Savings Bank: Plaintiff/appellee, V. Robert L. Grimm, et al. Defendants/appellants.

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Parkview Federal Savings Bank: Plaintiff/appellee, V. Robert L. Grimm, et al. Defendants/appellants. Case No: Court of Appeals Case No MEMORANDUM OPPOSING MOTION for VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR Robert L. Grimnm 510 Locklie Highland Heights, Ohio COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, Parkview Federal Jennifer Monty (76409) 323 W Lakeside #200 Cleveland, Ohin imontv@weltman.com

2 The Appellant Robert L. Grimm hereby opposes the PlaintifPs Motion for Vexatious Litigator filed on March 12, 2012, and asks this court to deny the motion, because I am not vexatious. I have not acted in a way as to satisfy O.R.C In the alternative, I ask that this court defer its decision on this motion until the lower courts can rule on my Application for Leave to Proceed and my Motion for R^elief. It is true that I have filed multiple appeals to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. It is also true that each and every one of the decisions by that court has stated that it found `there were reasonable grounds for this appeal'. It is rather obvious that if the three judges of an appellate court fmd reasonable grounds for an appeal, that there are reasonable grounds for the original case in the lowest court. Therefore, the lower court cannot in the interest of justice find differently than the three appellate judges. The attomey for the Plaintiff in her motion states that I was `without reasonable grounds' [p 1] 1 leave it to this court to decide whether the three appellate judges or the one biased attomey is correct. It is also true that I have filed four (4) times in this court. It is also true that jurisdiction was denied all four times. These were filed because I felt that the lower courts erred and the appellate court stated there were reasonable grounds for an appeal. The cases were not vexatious. It is a known fact that less than 12% of all cases filed in this court are denied. This court has declared 21 persons as vexatious in the past 9 years. The reasons are varied, however there has never been a case in which any number of jurisdictional filings by one person, let alone four or six filings was sufficient reason to declare vexatious. The attorney for the Plaintiff claims in its motion that I have engaged in habitual and persistent vexatious conduct against... its employees. [p 1] Employees is plural. This is false. I have filed one suit against one employee who knowingly made false statements in a sworn affidavit.

3 Unfortunately, I have been unable to ask this employee, under oath, if the statements are true or false. The Plaintiff also claims in its motion that I continue to repeatedly raise illegal issues previously litigated. [p 1] It is my understanding that because my foreclosure case has not adjudicated all the claims, under Civil Rule 54(B), `any order or other decision shall not terminate actions of any claim or party, and any order or decision is subject to revision at any time before final judgment in the case is completely adjudicated'. It was not my decision to issue a`no just reason for delay' in my foreclosure case. O.R.C (A) (3) clearly defines vexatious litigator as a person who meets three requirements: habitual, persistent, and without reasonable grounds. All three must be satisfied. I will agree that I am persistent. I am not habitual. I have been wronged several times in this foreclosure case. Two out of three are not enough. The appellate court has found reasonable grounds. Therefore I cannot be found to be vexatious. The plaintiff claims a remand by the Supreme Court. [p 2] This is false. There was no remand by this court. The plaintiff's attorney is quite careless with false statements. The plaintiff claims case number is still pending. [p 2] This also is false. Once again, carelessness on the plainfiff's attorney. I have filed six separate Supreme Court appeals. Four have been denied. Two are still pending a decision. To my surprise, I have just learned of the Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court case number cv , which found that I was a vexatious litigator. I have filed an Application for Leave to Proceed with a Motion for Relief from its Judgment Order with that court, based on the following: failure to serve a summons and complaint on me; failure of the court and plaintiff to

4 send hearing notices prior to the hearing; filing orders after the fact( see attached wherein journal entry ordering February 9 hearing at 9am, was filed the same date at 9:34am); failure to have this case heard by the foreclosure case judge who is familiar with all the facts; failure to meet all the requirements of O.R.C (A) (3); and failure to permit me to present a defense. As of this date the lower court has not acted on my Application for Leave to file a Motion for Relie Declaring a person to be a vexatious litigator is "an extreme measure" that should be granted only "when there is no nexus" between "the filings made by the person and [his or her] intended claims." McClure v. Fischer Attached Homes, 145 Ohio Misc.2d 38, 882 N.E.2d 61, 2007-Ohio The plaintiff's motion should probably be dismissed because of failure to follow rule 14.4 and attach a copy of the lower court's decision referenced. In the alternative, I ask that this court defer its decision until the lower courts have ruled in case cv Respectfully submitted, Certificate of Service I certify tnat a copy of this Memorandum Opposing iviotion was se by ordinary U.S. mail on March 24, 2012 to counsel for appellee: Jennifer Monty 323 W Lakeside #200 Cleveland, Ohio Robert L. Crriinm

5 PARKVIEW FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Case No: CV Judge: STUART A FRIEDMAN ROBERT L. GRIMM Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY THE COURT CONSTRUES PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS A MOTION TO SET A HEARING TO DECLARE DEFENDANT A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR. HEARING WILL GO FORWARD ON 02/09/2012 AT 9:00 AM. ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR. Judge Signature 02/09/ /26/2012 RECEIVED FOR FILING :53:43 By: CLTMW GERALD E. FUERST, CLERK Page 1 of 1

6 PARKVIEW FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Case No: CV Judge: STUART A FRIEDMAN ROBERT L. GRIMM Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANT(S) ROBERT L. GRIIvIM WAS/WERE SERVED ON 12/14/2011, AND HAS/HAVE FAILED TO MOVE, ANSWER, OR OTHERWISE PLEAD. CASE SET FOR DEFAULT HEARING 02/09/2012 AT 09:00 AM. PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT(S) BY REGULAR MAIL AND TO COME PREPARED WITH EVIDENCE AND PROPOSED JOURNAL ENTRY. Judge Signature 02/09/ /25/2012 RECEIVED FOR FILING 02/09/ :34:35 By: CLPAL GERALD E. FUERST, CLERK Page 1 of 1