Red Foot Racing Stables et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike Polhamus, Sr., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19AP-390 (C.P.C. No. 18CV-10014)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
February 20, 2020
2020-Ohio-592
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
[Cite as Red Foot Racing Stables v. Polhamus, 2020-Ohio-592.] (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on February 20, 2020
On brief: Raymond L. Eichenberger, pro se. Argued: Raymond L. Eichenberger.
On brief: Graff & McGovern, LPA, Brandon M. Smith, and John A. Izzo, for appellee. Argued: Luther Liggett.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Red Foot Racing Stables and Raymond Eichenberger, appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Plеas dismissing their complaint against defendant-appellee, Mike Polhamus, Sr. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal in part, reverse the trial court‘s judgment in part, and remand for further proceedings.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} On December 3, 2018, Red Foot Racing Stables and Eichenberger filed a complaint against Polhamus, asserting negligence аnd breach of contract claims arising from their retention of Polhamus to train three of their standardbred racehorses. The complaint states that Red Foot Racing Stables is an “entity” that is “duly recognized by” the
{3} On December 20, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on appellants’ motion for emergency custody and possession of certain horses in Polhamus’ possession, which the trial court construed as a request fоr a temporary restraining order. After holding the hearing on appellants’ motion and balancing the applicable factors, the trial court denied the motion based on its conclusion that appellants failed to meet their burden.
{4} On December 28, 2018, Polhamus filed a motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint pursuant tо
{5} In May 2019, the trial court granted Polhamus’ motion to dismiss. Based on information outside the complaint, the trial court determined that it is undisputed that Eichenberger does not own the horses at issue and thus he has no individual claims in this matter. The trial court decided the dispute centered on whether Red Foot Racing Stables was a separate business entity, such as a limited liability company (“LLC“). As to this issue, the trial court found that Red Foot Racing Stables, as identified in the complaint, was in fact Red Foot Racing Stables, LLC. Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that, as to Red Foot Racing Stables, the complaint is a nullity because it was not filed by a licensed attorney, and that Eichenberger‘s claims must be dismissed because he has no individual claims against Polhamus. The trial court therefore dismissed the complaint.
{6} Red Foot Racing Stables and Eichenberger timely appeal.
II. Assignments of Error
{7} Appellants assign the following errors for our review:
- [1.] The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by considering information outside of the text of the complaint in granting the defendant‘s motion to dismiss.
- [2.] The trial court erred as a matter of law and abusеd its discretion by failing to notify the parties that it was converting the defendant‘s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and by then failing to permit the plaintiff to submit
Civil 56 evidence to the court to oppose the motion.
III. Discussion
{8} Appellants’ first аssignment of error asserts the trial court erred in considering information outside the complaint in granting Polhamus’ motion to dismiss. Their second assignment of error contends thе trial court erred in converting Polhamus’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.
{9} Before resolving the merits of this appeal, we must address the preliminary issue of whether this appeal was properly filed on behalf of Red Foot Racing Stables. Eichenberger signed the complaint and initiated this matter on behalf of Red Foоt Racing Stables, which the complaint expressly identified as an “entity” and treated as a separate party. Black‘s Law Dictionary defines an “entity” as “[a]n organization (such as a business or a governmental unit) that has a legal identity apart from its members or owners.” Black‘s Law Dictionary 612 (9th Ed.2009). But Eichenberger is not a licensed attorney1 and thus may not represent another party in court. “Only a licensed attorney may file pleadings on behalf of another party in court.” State ex rel. Army of the Twelve Monkeys v. Warren Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 156 Ohio St.3d 346, 2019-Ohio-901, ¶ 5, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 106 Ohio St.3d 144, 2005-Ohio-4104, ¶ 7. See
{10} Insofar as Eichenberger appeals the dismissal of his individual claims аgainst Polhamus, that appeal is properly before us for disposition. We first address Eichenberger‘s contention raised by his second assignment of error – that the trial court erred in converting Polhamus’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. This assignment of error lacks merit because the trial court did not convert the motion to dismiss tо a motion for summary judgment. Thus, we overrule his second assignment of error.
{11} We next address the merits of Eichenberger‘s first assignment of error, which asserts the trial court erred in сonsidering materials outside the complaint. In analyzing Polhamus’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the trial court properly outlined the standard of review for a
{12} Accordingly, we sustain Eichenberger‘s first assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
{13} Based оn the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal as to appellant Red Foot Racing Stables. As to appellant Eichenberger, we sustain his first assignment of error and overrule his second assignment of error. Therefore, we reverse in part the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remand this matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with law and this decision.
Appeal dismissed in part; judgment reversed in part; cause remanded.
BROWN and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.