KIDZ BOP LLC v. PAUL BROADHEAD, JR.
APPEAL NO. C-140686
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
September 16, 2015
2015-Ohio-3744
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 16, 2015
Buckley King LPA and Jeffrey R. Teeters, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
McHard & Associates, PLLC, and P. Manion Anderson, and Droder & Miller Co., L.P.A., and Christopher J. Wise, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
KIDZ BOP LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
PAUL BROADHEAD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
PB&K MEDIA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEAL NO. C-140686
TRIAL NO. A-1207241
O P I N I O N.
FISCHER, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Paul Broadhead, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s decision overruling his
{¶2} The record shows that on September 14, 2012, Kidz Bop filed a complaint for breach of contract and fraud against Broadhead and two other defendants. On May 31, 2013, Broadhead’s counsel filed a motion tо withdraw stating that he had Broadhead’s “informed consent” to withdraw on the ground that Broadhead was “unable to meet [his] financiаl obligations.” The trial court did not immediately rule on the motion due to discovery disputes.
{¶3} Before the trial court ruled on the motion to withdraw, Kidz Bop filed a motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to advise Broadhead that he could represent himself, but that he would be “bound by the same rules of conduct as counsel.”
{¶4} On July 17, 2013, Broadhead failed to appear for a deposition and for a status conference that the trial court had ordered him to attend. He also failed to respond to Kidz Bop’s motion for summary judgment even though the court had extеnded the deadline.
{¶5} On August 29, 2013, Broadhead appeared for a hearing on Kidz Bop’s motion for summary judgment. He claimed that he had no knowledge of the motion because he had been in Central America doing humanitarian work. The trial court found that his claim that he did not know about the motion was disingenuous. Nevertheless, the court allowed him to respond out of time and supplement the
record. In response, Broadhead sent two emails to the trial court which were not appropriate evidentiary materials under
{¶6} The trial court granted Kidz Bop’s motion for summary judgment. Broadhead did not appeal that judgment, and Kidz Bop began collection efforts. He did not comply with a subpoena served on him for a judgment-debtor examination. He obtained counsel, and a new date for the examination was set. But counsel later stated that Broadhеad would not attend the examination.
{¶7} On September 15, 2014, Broadhead filed a
{¶8} The trial court overruled the motion, finding that Broadhead had failed to establish excusable neglect. As to his claim that he did not know about the summary-judgment motion, the trial court stated, “[T]he record in this case presents a contrary picture, suggesting that his testimony that he had no knowledge of a motion for summary judgment is not true.” The court further stated that “to say he did not have notice of what was required was disingenuous at best. The court explained tо him what he needed to do, and as a pro se litigant he is held to the same standard as an attorney.” This appeal fоllowed.
{¶9} In his sole assignment of error, Broadhead contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion. He argues that he proved he was entitled to relief under
{¶10} To prevail on a
defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of thе grounds stated in
{¶11} Broadhead relies on
{¶12} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Broadhead had failed to show excusable neglect. See State ex rel. Jackson at ¶ 22. Broadhеad argues that his counsel withdrew, that he was acting pro se, and that he was unaware of the procedure to be followed to oppose the motion for summary judgment.
{¶13} Pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as thosе litigants who retain counsel. Parallel Homes, LLC v. Stephens, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130292, 2014-Ohio-840, ¶ 15. A pro se litigant’s lack of knowledge of proper legal procedure does not constitute excusable neglect. Sunshine Ltd. v. Kidztown Early Learning Ctr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98879, 2013-Ohio-2092, ¶ 15. Courts generally do not permit pro se litigants who are careless or unfamiliar with the lеgal
system to use
{¶14} Broadhead chose to proceed pro se. The trial court warned Broadhead that he would be bound by thе same rules as counsel. “The court need not act as a pro se litigant’s counsel.” Washington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-88-306, 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 3818, *4 (Oct. 6, 1989). This case demonstrates that it is rarely wise for litigants to represent themselves and shows the importance of competent counsel even in civil cases. See generally Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832-835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
{¶15} Further, the record shows that Broadhead’s conduct was not solely thе result of unfamiliarity with the legal system. As the trial court noted, he was less than candid with the trial court on several occasiоns. The record shows that his failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment was not reasonable under the circumstancеs, and therefore, did not constitute excusable neglect.
{¶16} Broadhead also contends that he was entitled to reliеf from judgment under
{¶17} Broadhead is using his
for a timely appeal. See Doe v. Trumbull Cty. Children Servs. Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 128, 502 N.E.2d 605 (1986), paragraph two of the syllabus; Internatl. Lottery v. Kerouac, 102 Ohio App.3d 660, 668, 657 N.E.2d 820 (1st Dist.1995). Consequently, we overrule Broadhead’s assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
HENDON, P.J., and DEWINE, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.