C.L. v. WeilerC.L. v. Weiler
Shawn Weiler, pro se.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{1} Respondent-appellant Shawn Weiler appeals from a judgment of Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that found him in contempt for violating a civil stalking protеction order (“CSPO“). The CSPO prohibited him from having any contact with C.L., a former coworker. While the CSPO was in effect, Weiler filed a lawsuit against her; among the causes of actions he raised in the complaint was his claim that her petition for a protection order against him constituted malicious
Background
{2} C.L. and Weiler were employed by the same company in 2017. On June 6, 2017, C.L. filed a “Petition for Civil Stalking Protection Order or Civil Sexually Oriented Offense Protection Order” pursuant to
{3} On July 3, 2017, the court held a full hearing on the pеtition. C.L. was represented by counsel, and Weiler appeared pro se. Both provided testimony, as well as C.L.‘s father. After the hearing, the trial court issued a CSPO against Weiler for the maximum term of five years, to expire on July 3, 2022. The court found Weiler “engaged in a pattern of conduct that knowingly caused petitioner to believe
{4} On June 1, 2018, Weiler sent a lengthy email about C.L. to employees of the company where Weiler and C.L. worked together. As a result, on June 4, 2018, C.L. filed a criminal complaint against Weiler. He was found guilty оf violating the CSPO after a jury trial.1
{5} On June 4, 2021, Weiler filed a civil complaint against C.L., asserting claims of civil malicious prosecution, criminal malicious prosecution, and constructive fraud, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-17-881338.2 The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the trial court upon C.L.‘s motion to dismiss pursuant to
{6} Thе instant appeal arose from Weiler‘s conduct communicating with C.L. regarding the malicious prosecution lawsuit. The trial court docket of that prior case is not part of the record before us, but we are able to discern the following from the record in this appeal.
{7} On Decеmber 28, 2021, Weiler filed a “Notice of Change of Address” in the malicious prosecution lawsuit, notifying the court that C.L.‘s address has been changed. He provided the court with her new address in Texas and requested that “the Clerk change Defendant‘s address of record and provide all notices” to C.L.‘s new address. On December 29, 2021, the clerk‘s office sent the summons and complaint to C.L.‘s new address. However, Weiler also sent the court papers to C.L. himself on December 29, 2021.
{8} On February 8, 2022, C.L., through her attorney, filed a motion to show cause, requesting a hearing on why Weiler should not be held in contempt for violating the CSPO. She alleged that Weiler violated the protection order by directly corresponding with her and by filing a fraudulent lawsuit against her. Attached to her motion was the “Notice of Change of Address” filed by Weiler on December 28, 2021, and a photocopy of an envelope showing a mailing dated December 29, 2021, from Weiler at his Lakewood Ohio address to C.L. at her Texas address.
{9} In response, Weiler filed a “Motion to Strike Sham.” He alleged that there is no prohibition in the CSPO against “serving process” on C.L.4
{10} The trial court held a show-cause hearing on April 1, 2022. C.L.‘s counsel cited the harassing conduct Wеiler himself described in great detail in the email he sent to his former coworkers on June 1, 2018; counsel described Weiler as “delusional” and “unhinged.” Counsel also reported that since C.L. filed the show cause motion, Weiler mailed her “an additional I think five or six pleadings” in the malicious prosecution lаwsuit. Counsel also reported Weiler had called C.L. recently and she immediately hung up on him.
{11} C.L. testified that in 2018, she went to law enforcement after she learned that over 70 of her coworkers received a very lengthy email from Weiler about her. She immediately filed a police report, and Weiler was subsequently found guilty of violating the civil stalking protection order.
{12} C.L. further testified that, in December 2021, she began to receive mail from Weiler‘s personal address to her at her out-of-state address. She received a total of nine mailings in the course of several months. She did not open the first three mailings and instead sent them to her attorney. She opened the remaining mailings, which all contained court documents. These mailings were initially addressed to her in her maiden name, but the last mailing was addressed to her in
{13} Weiler maintained that he could not be found guilty of violаting of CSPO by filing a legitimate lawsuit, but he otherwise provided no testimony or evidence in his defense. The trial court denied Weiler‘s “Motion to Strike Sham” and granted C.L.‘s motion to show cause. The court found that “by sending letters, correspondence, and documents” to C.L., Weiler violated the CSPO and it imposed a fine of $1,000.
{14} Weiler filed a “Motion for Reconsideration.” He acknowledged that on December 29, 2021, the summons and the complaint were mailed by the Clerk of the Courts of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. He alleged that he “served all court documents that [he] believed were required to be served pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.” He claimed that his communication with C.L., whom he alleged was unrepresented, could not be a violation of the protection order. Attached to the motion was his affidavit, which acknowledged that he filed a request on December 28, 2021, for service оf his complaint against C.L. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, and this appeal follows.5
{15} On appeal, Weiler raises the following assignments of error:
- I. The Court of Common Pleas erred in granting the Petitioner-Appellee‘s Motion to Show Cause.
- II. The Court of Common Pleas erred in finding Respondent-Appellant in contempt of court.
- III. The Court of Common Pleas erred in denying Respondent-Appellant‘s Motion for Reconsideration.
{16} We address the first and second assignments jointly because they involve the same issue.
{17} In reviewing this appeal, we bear in mind that pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and they are held to the same standard as litigants represented by counsel. State ex rel. Fuller v. Mengel, 100 Ohio St.3d 352, 2003-Ohio-6448, 800 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 10. “Pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights, and they must accept the results of their own mistakes.” Fazio v. Gruttadauria, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90562, 2008-Ohio-4586, ¶ 9, quoting Williams v. Lo, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-949, 2008-Ohio-2804, ¶ 18.
{18}
{19} In this case, C.L. filed a motion to shоw cause alleging Weiler‘s violation of the CSPO and the trial court found him in contempt pursuant to
{20} Weiler argues he would be effectively denied access to the court if he is found in violation of the CSPO by filing a lawsuit against C.L. We first note that “[d]espite the paramount importance placed on the ability to access the courts for redress of injuries, the right is not absolute.” Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366, 2012-Ohio-4193, 978 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 223, quoting Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324, 2007-Ohio-6442, 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 11. More importantly, the record here indicates that the trial court did not find Weiler in violation of the CSPO by filing a lawsuit against C.L. Rather, the court found him in violаtion of the CSPO by “sending letters, correspondence, and documents” to C.L., which is prohibited under the terms of the protection order. Weiler claims his correspondence with C.L. should not be a violation of the protection order because he was required to serve court documents оn her pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Our review of the record indicates Weiler‘s claim lacks merit.
{21} Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, upon the filing of a complaint, the clerk shall issue a summons for service on the defendant.
{22} The record of the malicious prosecution case is not part of this appeal, and the instant record does not clearly reflect whether or not C.L. was represented by counsel when Weiler mailed court papers to her. At the hearing, C.L. testified she forwarded the first three mailings from Weiler to her attorney. Weiler did not refute that testimony or provide evidence to show she was unrepresented when he mailed the court documents to her.
{23} Regardless of whether she was represented by counsel at the time, however, the record before us indicates that Weiler notified the court of C.L.‘s change of address on December 28, 2021, and requested that the clerk‘s office “provide all notices” to her at her new address. The сlerk‘s office sent the summons and complaint to C.L. at her Texas address on December 29, 2021. Yet, Weiler personally mailed the summons and complaint to C.L. on the same day. At that time, he was subject to the CSPO in which he was barred from having any communication with C.L. Weiler‘s conduct was in violation of the terms of the CSPO because he was not required by the Rules of Civil Procedure to send the summons and complaint directly to C.L.
{24} The circumstances of this case can be contrasted with Toledo v. Hughes, 174 Ohio App.3d 598, 2007-Ohio-7098, 883 N.E.2d 1104 (6th Dist.). In that case, after a protection order was filed against the appellant, he filed suit against the protected person in small claims court regarding a prоperty dispute. The appellant objected to the magistrate‘s decision, and he was instructed by the clerk‘s office to mail a copy of his objections to the opposing party. The appellant was subsequently charged with violating the protection order. On appeal, thе Sixth District reversed his conviction of violating the protection order because he acted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the directives of court personnel. The appellate court noted specifically that the appellant was required tо sign a certificate verifying that he would mail the court document to the other party. Id. at ¶ 14-15.
{25} In contrast, here, Weiler requested the service of the summons and complaint to her new address and the clerk sent them accordingly. Contrary to Weiler‘s claim, he was not required to send these court papers to her directly. Consequently, we conclude that the record before us contains competent credible evidence to support the trial court‘s determination that Weiler violated the CSPO and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion finding him in contempt. The first and secоnd assignments of error are without merit.
{26} Finally, we summarily overrule the third assignment of error because the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for reconsideration
{27} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR