Koblentz & Penvose, L.L.C. v. Melvin
2022 Ohio 1399
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Koblentz & Penvose, LLC sued pro se defendant James Melvin for unpaid legal fees totaling $14,185.15 (complaint filed Jan. 22, 2020).
- The parties exchanged pleadings over many months; Melvin missed deadlines, filed motions to recuse judges, and repeatedly indicated he intended to retain counsel but no attorney formally appeared.
- Koblentz moved for summary judgment on April 26, 2021, attaching the engagement/fee agreement, itemized billing, demand letter, and an affidavit from Attorney Richard Koblentz asserting the balance and reasonableness of charges.
- The trial court set Melvin’s opposition due May 26, 2021 (per a May 19 CMC entry). Melvin filed a pro se “notice of appearance of counsel” May 25 but no attorney ever entered an appearance and no brief in opposition was filed.
- On July 8, 2021 the trial court granted summary judgment for Koblentz (amount due plus 18% interest from Oct. 31, 2018, and costs); Melvin appealed, arguing the court should have delayed for counsel, granted continuance, and afforded leniency for his pro se status.
- The appellate court affirmed: Koblentz met its summary-judgment burden with documentary evidence and affidavit; Melvin failed to timely produce Civ.R. 56(C) evidence; pro se status does not entitle special treatment; the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance or waiting for counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on the unpaid-fees claim | Evidence (engagement letter, billing, demand letter, affidavit) establishes no genuine issue and entitlement to judgment | Fees were excessive/unreasonable and disputed | Granted for Koblentz: documentary evidence + affidavit satisfied the moving-party burden; Melvin failed to present Civ.R. 56(C) evidence to create a genuine issue |
| Effect of Melvin’s failure to timely oppose the motion for summary judgment | Court should enforce deadlines; absence of opposition means nonmoving party failed Civ.R. 56 burden | Late opposition and oral objections should suffice given circumstances | Held against Melvin: May 19 entry fixed May 26 deadline; no brief filed; verbal assertions aren’t Civ.R. 56(C) evidence |
| Whether Melvin’s pro se status required special leniency or extensions | Koblentz argued deadlines and rules applied equally; no counsel appeared | Melvin claimed he deserved leniency and intended to retain counsel | Held against Melvin: pro se litigants are held to same standards as represented parties; no special treatment warranted |
| Whether denying continuance / ruling before counsel appeared was an abuse of discretion | Trial court’s docket-management decisions are within its discretion | Melvin argued an emergency prevented participation and court should have waited for counsel | Held against Melvin: no abuse of discretion; ample opportunity was provided and no attorney entered appearance |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving-party and reciprocal burdens on summary judgment)
- Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. St. Cyr, 90 N.E.3d 321 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43 (pro se litigants held to same standards as represented parties)
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (pro se litigant not entitled to special treatment)
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (court speaks through its docket and journal entries)