Hamid v. Univ. Manors, Ltd.
2021 Ohio 2115
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Appellant Masud Hamid, pro se, leased an apartment in August 2017 and reported black spots he believed to be mold; he alleges respiratory illness and other injuries after testing by a mold inspector.
- Hamid filed a four‑count complaint (personal injury, fraud, discrimination, fraudulent conveyance) in Franklin County Common Pleas on Sept. 24, 2018 against six related corporate defendants.
- Only University Manors, Ltd. was initially served; multiple defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim; some defendants were later dismissed for lack of service under Civ.R. 4(E).
- The trial court granted motions to dismiss as to the Roetzel‑represented defendants (June 24, 2019) and later granted the Taft‑represented defendants’ motion as to two entities (Jan. 6, 2020); the court denied Hamid’s untimely motion to amend.
- The trial court found the complaint conclusory and lacking specific factual allegations of causation and measurable damages; dismissal reasons included failure to plead a prima facie claim and undue prejudice from amendment.
- On appeal Hamid failed to comply with appellate briefing rules (no assignments of error, required tables, or record citations); the Tenth District dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint survives Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Hamid contends allegations of mold exposure and diagnosis state claims for relief | Defendants argue the complaint is conclusory, lacks specific causation, damages, and factual detail | Court: Dismissed for failure to state a claim (complaint conclusory; no causation/quantified damages) |
| Whether dismissal for failure of service under Civ.R. 4(E) was proper | Hamid implied service was adequate or attempted | Defendants/ court: service not effected on certain entities; plaintiff failed to timely request service | Court: Dismissed two defendants without prejudice for failure to effect service |
| Whether leave to amend complaint should be granted (Civ.R. 15) | Hamid sought leave to add an intentional tort claim | Defendants argued amendment untimely, prejudicial, and failed to show prima facie claim | Court: Denied leave to amend (untimely, prejudicial, no prima facie showing) |
| Whether appeal should proceed despite briefing defects | Hamid argues trial court erred in its rulings (generally) | Appellees argue procedural default and briefing noncompliance; appellate rules require assignments of error | Court: Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with App.R./Local Rules (no assignments of error; deficient brief) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC, 138 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 2013) (pro se litigants are presumed to know legal procedures and are held to same standards as represented parties)
- State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2003) (same principle that civil procedural rules apply equally to pro se litigants)