Ettayem v. H.E.R., L.L.C.
2020 Ohio 4647
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2004 Ettayem and his wife executed a mortgage secured by real property; the mortgage was later assigned to The Bank of New York Mellon (BONYM).
- BONYM obtained judgment in foreclosure in 2014; sheriff’s sale occurred August 13, 2014, and the foreclosure judgment and sale were affirmed on appeal.
- In 2016 Ettayem sued H.E.R., LLC and others alleging, inter alia, that on October 12, 2014 locks were changed and his personal property was removed; BONYM and Shellpoint (the loan servicer) were later added.
- Ettayem voluntarily dismissed the 2016 case after summary-judgment motions; he refiled the same claims in December 2018 and defendants refiled summary-judgment motions in 2019.
- Dispute over discovery: Ettayem attempted to depose a BONYM representative; defendants sought a protective order on the ground the requested deposition was duplicative because Shellpoint (servicer) had already been deposed in the prior action.
- The trial court granted the protective order, denied Ettayem’s Civ.R. 56(F) continuance request, and granted summary judgment to the defendants; Ettayem appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective order/stay of discovery | Ettayem argued defendants refused to cooperate with his deposition notice, preventing him from prosecuting his claims. | BONYM/Shellpoint argued a deposition would be duplicative because Shellpoint (servicer) already testified and BONYM had no additional personal knowledge; protective order was appropriate to avoid undue burden/expense. | Court: No abuse of discretion in issuing protective order and limiting discovery; Civ.R. 26(C) allows protection from annoyance/undue expense. |
| Grant of summary judgment | Ettayem argued deficiency of defendants’ evidence and that additional discovery was needed to oppose summary judgment. | Defendants argued record showed no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment was proper; prior discovery/deposition and affidavits supported their motions. | Court: Affirmed trial court’s comprehensive ruling granting summary judgment to defendants; Ettayem’s arguments insufficient to defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- No key authorities with official reporter citations were relied upon in the court of appeals opinion (the opinion primarily cites Ohio appellate slip opinions and Civil Rules).