2015 Ohio 4044
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Catudal filed suit against Netcare and several individuals over a criminal-action competency evaluation and alleged false testimony.
- Plaintiff claimed negligence, conspiracy, and damages for loss of consortium and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants answered and counterclaimed to declare Catudal a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52.
- Prior to this suit, a Domestic Relations judge had declared Catudal a vexatious litigator and warned him.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the counterclaim and declared Catudal a vexatious litigator; Catudal appeals.
- The court concludes two final, appealable orders exist: the grant of summary judgment to defendants and the denial of Catudal’s summary-judgment motion on the vexatious-litigator issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly declared vexatious litigator based on conduct in other actions. | Catudal contends prior conduct in other filings is improper to justify vexatious status | Defendants rely on R.C. 2323.52(A)(3) allowing review of prior actions | Yes; the court may consider prior conduct; first assignment overruled |
| Whether the denial of Catudal’s summary-judgment on the vexatious-litigator issue is a final, appealable order and whether two final orders exist. | Catudal argues no final order on denial to review | Denial, with grant, constitutes two final orders; appeal permitted | Yes; two final orders exist and appealable; second assignment sustained in part and overruled in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Catudal v. Catudal, 2013-Ohio-2748 (Ohio 2013) (warning appropriate for filings; later reversed on procedural grounds)
- Catudal v. Catudal, 2013-Ohio-4801 (Ohio 2013) (reversed due to motion-not-caused-by-complaint issue in vexatious-litigator claim)
- Roo v. Sain, 2005-Ohio-2436 (Ohio 2005) (no prerequisite frivolous-conduct sanction required before vexatious-litigator request)