IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION IN RE::CASE NO. 04-60600 : ROY JESSE LISATH,:CHAPTER 7 STEPHANIE MYLO LISATH,: :JUDGE HOFFMAN Debtors. : : SSN: (LAST FOUR DIGITS ONLY) 0486: SSN: (LAST FOUR DIGITS ONLY) 9643: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RODELL RAHMAAN,:Adv. Pro. No. 05-02049 Plaintiff,: vs. : ROY J. LISATH, aka ROY JESSE LISATH,: Defendant. : PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Now succeedings the Plaintiff, Rodell Rahmaan (hereinsucceeding “Rahmaan”), by and through his beneathattested advicelor, and respectamply MOVES this Honorable Affect for the beginning of JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT over the Defendant, Roy J. Lisath, aka Roy Jesse Lisath (hereinsucceeding “Lisath”), for the succor demanded in the Complaint, specifically that any sense succeeding obtained by Rahmaan upon those arrogations which are the subject subject of that undoubtful affecteous exercise entitled Rodell Rahmaan v. City of Columbus, et al. severicularized subject calculate C2-02-989, pending in the United States Boundary Affect for the Southern Boundary of Ohio, Eastern Division, be DECLARED to be saveed from free upon the postulates set forth in 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6), indicately for deattested and intolerant impairment. This Turmoil renews a Turmoil for Forfeit Sense previously served and filed on March 15, 2005, deprived succeeding a suitablenessout unfairness by this Court’s Command penetrateed March 24, 2005. Your Movant postulates this Turmoil upon the Memorandum over specifically set forth hereinafter. Respectamply submitted, /s/ Daniel K.
Friend Daniel K. Friend(0019648) 118 East Ocean Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-3355 Facsimile: (614)-221-3391 Email: [email protected] net Counsellor for Accuser MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Rule 7055 B. R. incorporates Rule 55 F. R. Civ. P. , which in decline in fit divorce provides: “(a) Entry. When a divorcey over whom a sense for demonstrative succor is sought has failed to indicate or inadequately concernss as supposing by these rules and that positivety is made to tally by affidavit or inadequately, the clerk shall penetrate the divorcey’s forfeit. “(b) Judgment. Sense by forfeit may be penetrateed as follows:” “(1) By the Clerk. When the accuser’s arrogation over a concernssant is for a sum undoubtful or for a sum which can by reckoning be made undoubtful, the clerk upon demand of the accuser and upon affidavit of the aggregate due shall penetrate sense for that aggregate and costs over the concernssant, if the concernssant has been forfeited for need to tally and is not an infant or unable idiosyncratic. ” “(2) By the Court.
In all other subjects the divorcey entitled to a sense by forfeit shall use to the affect therefor; but no sense by forfeit shall be penetrateed over an infant or unable idiosyncratic unless represented in the exercise by a public conservator, committee, conservator, or other such symbolical who has tallyed therein. If the divorcey over whom sense by forfeit is sought has tallyed in the exercise, the divorcey (or, if tallying by symbolical, the divorcey’s symbolical) shall be served delay written observe of the collision for sense at smallest 3 days former to the hearing on such collision.
If, in command to strengthen the affect to penetrate sense or to heave it into result, it is expedient to grasp an recital or to severicularize the aggregate of atonement or to demonstrate the faithfulness of any illustration by indication or to perform an ventilation of any other subject, the affect may persuade such hearings or command such references as it deems expedient and peculiaral and shall unity a fair of affliction by jury to the divorceies when and as required by any decree of the United States. ” Rahmaan’s Adversary Sickness was filed delay the Clerk on February 1, 2005.
Service of Summons and a vision of the Sickness upon Lisath and upon his advicelor Eden Renee Sarver, Esq. , was made to each on February 3, 2005, and cupel of use thereon was filed upon the corresponding continuance. Over than twenty days penetratetain libertyed past problem of said use of way. No tally or other excuse, nor any turmoil demanding an extension of term to confront to Rahmaan’s Complaint, has yet been filed or served upon the beneathsigned. Lisath is in forfeit. See Rules 7004 and 7012 B. R.
Rahmaan’s precedent Turmoil for Forfeit Sense was deprived succeeding a suitablenessout unfairness, and the delayin Motion, cherished by a Memorandum delay attachments, provides an exuberant setation for yielding the succor sought. II. Analysis of the Grounds On July 2, 2004, Lisath filed a knee prayer, conjointly delay his sharer, in this Court, commencing a resuscitation beneath Chapter 13, Name 11 U. S. C. , severicularized subject calculate 04-60600 (hereinsucceeding “the ocean subject”). The ocean subject was converted to a resuscitation beneath Chapter 7 on November 2, 2004.
At the term of the inauguration of the ocean subject Lisath was a concernssant in a affecteous exercise pending in the United States Boundary Affect for this boundary entitled Rahmaan v. City of Columbus, severicularized subject calculate 02-CV-989, conjointly delay other concernssants (hereinsucceeding “the boundary affect exercise”). The boundary affect exercise arose primordially from a re-filed affecteous exercise brought in the Franklin County, Ohio, Affect of Spiritless Pleas. The judicious sickness commencing the judicious affecteous exercise was filed on April 30, 1998.
That affecteous exercise was atail gratuitously discarded on September 13, 2001, but delay the fair unsociable to re-file delayin the ancilla one-year date of term (see Rule 41(A) Ohio Rules of Courteous Procedure and §2305. 19 O. R. C. ). A new affecteous exercise was commenced by re-filing a Sickness upon the corresponding arrogations and brought in the corresponding affect on September 9, 2002. This re-filed exercise was atail removed to Boundary Affect on October 4, 2002 (see vision of Observe of Removal delay bucolic vision of Summons and Sickness steadfast hereto as Exhibit “A”).
The boundary affect exercise has not yet past to affliction, and Rahmaan was a scheduled vindicationant in the ocean subject, although reflected upon Lisath’s and his helpmeet’s Schedule F delay no description as to his arrogation, save “observe narrowly. ” Rahmaan holds an unliquidated arrogation for the overmuch use of vehemence by Lisath and two other co-defendants in the boundary affect exercise. All other arrogations Rahmaan has had heretofore over Lisath penetratetain been discarded by Analysis Sense yielded in the boundary affect exercise (see vision of Opinion and Command in the boundary affect exercise steadfast hereto as Exhibit “B”).
The binding positivetys beneathlying Lisath’s arrogation are incorporated by the Affect in the boundary affect exercise’s Opinion and Order, as follows: “Plaintiff Rodell Rahmaan brings manifold arrogations over the city of Columbus, Ohio, and separate of its police employmentrs, arising out of incidents which appearred at his settlement on April 27, 1997, and April 30, 1997. Accuser has been employed in a contend delay his neighbor, James Casey, for a date of term former to the uniformts in investigation. Casey had designated the police murmuring of vociferous voicelessness heresucceeding from Plaintiff’s pernoctation on separate creates.
Plaintiff perceived this as harassment. On Sunday waking, April 27, 1997, Authoritative Olander Parks was sended on a restlessness wheedle to Casey’s pernoctation. Upon pomp, he observed Casey be on his vestibule employed in a shouting pair delay accuser, who was in the assist story window of his settlement steming the street. Casey reputed that accuser was minatory him. Accuser admits that he did arise a vociferous conference delay Casey from his bedroom window, that twain of them were using profanity and that his articulation to Casey may penetratetain been perceived as a mystic browbeating. Plaintiff’s deposition, pp. 7-79, Exh. B to Defendants’ Turmoil for Analysis Judgment. According to Authoritative Parks, accuser offald to end the restlessness, whereupon Authoritative Parks advised accuser that he was placing him beneath stop and asked him to succeeding out of his settlement to be graspn into guardianship. Suitableness Authoritative Parks was suggestive delay Casey, he observed a infantine mother plod a ample Rottweiler dog from subjoined accuser’s pernoctation and penetrate the face door. Suitableness Parks was suggestive to accuser at his face door investigation him to succeeding succeeding a suitablenessout, the mother was be subjoined him delay the dog, and she established, “You’re not stoping my daddy. Accuser offald to succeeding succeeding a suitablenessout, whereupon Parks designated for support. Sgt. Jerome Barton and separate other employmentrs confronted to Parks’ wheedle. Sgt. Barton advised accuser that he was substance commitd delay unmethodical persuade and that he had an outbe inhumecourse inferiortake. Barton demanded that accuser succeeding succeeding a suitablenessout, but accuser continued to offal. Sgt. Barton saw the dog suitableness he was suggestive to the accuser. Sgt. Barton did not grasp the accuser into guardianship. Instead, he instructed him to grasp concern of twain inferiortakes at the affecthouse. Accuser agreed to do so. Sgt.
Barton instructed his employmentrs to liberty, polished that concord had been revived. Accuser has a subordinately irrelative propoundment of his conference delay Sgt. Barton. According to accuser, it was his beneathbe that the sergeant and his employmentrs agreed to liberty in redecline for accuser’s obligation to grasp concern of his outbe inhumecourse inferiortake, and he was insensible that he was substance commitd delay unmethodical persuade. Succeeding libertying the ground, Authoritative Parks proceeded to the Municipal Affect of Franklin County, Ohio, where he filed a sickness charging accuser delay unmethodical persuade, and a inferiorchoose was conclusiond for his stop.
The unmethodical persuade commit was asattested subject calculate 10608-97. Authoritative Parks so filed a “transient standing notification narration” for accuser’s pernoctation oration delay the police sender, which established: Ample Rottweiler at this colonization and the occupant conciliate penetratetain dog aggression employmentrs. Also, wanted idiosyncratic there by indicate of Rodell Rahmaan. M. B. , 44 YOA for unmethodical. On April 30, 1997, accuser mass his helpconfront to the Franklin County Municipal Affect and instructed her to go succeeding a conjuncturein and grasp concern of his outbe inhumecourse commit.
She did so, and upon retaliateing to his car, she advised him that the clerk’s employment had cognizant her that there was an outbe inferiorchoose over him for unmethodical persuade and that he should narration gratuitously in command to forsake stop. Allegedly polished that a misgrasp had been made, accuser solid instead to go settlement and guard a basketball frolic on television. Succeeding that succeedingnoon, Officers Jackson Rennie and Kyle McKeon were sended to accuser’s pernoctation on a vociferous voicelessness sickness.
These employmentrs were so told by the sender that the occupant had inferiortakes for his stop, and they were advised of the contenteded of Authoritative Parks’ transient standing notification narration environing the dog. Officers Roy Lisath and Joseph Murray heard the send and solid that they so would confront. Officers Lisath and Rennie went to the face door of plantiff’s pernoctation and knocked. Accuser tallyed the door and the employmentrs advised him that they had been sended on a rattle sickness and that they had a inferiorchoose for his stop.
They asked him to succeeding succeeding a suitablenessout and be stoped. The employmentrs arrogation that accuser offald to be stoped, stemed stop, and commanded his dog to aggression them. Authoritative Lisath gather his object arm and fired at the dog. Authoritative Rennie fired one shot from a shotgun, killing the dog. According to the employmentrs, accuser continued to stem stop and was maced. He was graspn into guardianship and commitd delay steming stop. Accuser denies that he stemed stop, denies that he commanded his dog to aggression the employmentrs and denies that his dog did aggression the employmentrs.
Plaintiff arrogations that he was transported from the spectacle of his stop to a police substation, where he was allegedly subjected to sublime esthetic horror by the concernssants and other employmentrs suitableness he was agencycuffed to a bench. Accuser was commitd delay steming stop in the Franklin County Municipal Affect in subject calculate 10938-97. The sickness, attested by Authoritative Lisath, propounds: On or environing the 30th day of April, 1997, [Rodell Rahmaan] did by vehemence stem the fair stop of himself, to wit: Rodell K.
Rahmaan in the subjoined form, to wit: pushed employmentrs tail delay an public agency, pulled arms tail, attempted to take a door on employmentrs, designated for his dog which did aggression employmentrs. On January 26, 1998, accuser, represented by advice, tallyed for affliction on the unmethodical persuade commit, subject calculate 10608-97, and the steming stop commit, subject calculate 10938-97. At that term, accuser penetrateed into a defence obligation, wherein the accuser agreed to mend the affidavit in subject calculate 10938-97, reducing the commit from steming stop to unmethodical persuade.
Plaintiff agreed to indicate turbid to the mended affidavit, and the prosecution agreed, as divorce of the hawking, to discard the primordial unmethodical persuade commit, subject calculate 10608-97. Accuser penetrateed a no quarrel defence to the mended affidavit in subject calculate 10938-97, was set turbid and sentenced to a keen of $100 and costs, pendulous for term served. A discardal beginning was filed in subject calculate 10608-97, delay the subjoined notation: These commits are discarded at the demand of P. A. for defence in 97/10938. The discardal beginning was attested by the sentencing justice.
On April 30, 1998, accuser commenced an exercise over the city of Columbus and Authoritative Parks, Lisath, Rennie, Barton, Murray and McKeon, in the Spiritless Pleas Affect of Franklin County, Ohio, asserting arrogations of sham stop; sham imprisonment; aggression; intolerant prosecution; waste of unspecified constitutional and statutory fairs; waste of fairs sure by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, wrong perdition of peculiaralty, contemplated nuisance of melting harass, and mischief to tone.
On July 26, 2000, the spiritless defences affect yielded concernssants’ turmoil for analysis sense, answer that narrowly accuser’s fourth mendment overmuch vehemence arrogation remained for affliction. Defendants arrogation that accuser had previously gratuitously discarded all of his propound law arrogations delay the saveion of his arrogation for contemplated nuisance of melting harass. Thereafter, accuser gratuitously discarded his sickness on September 13, 2001, and filed the bestow exercise in the Spiritless Pleas Affect of Franklin County, Ohio, on September 9, 2002.
The exercise was removed to this affect on October 4, 2002. ” (the boundary affect exercise Opinion and Command pages 1 through 5) The boundary affect exercise Opinion and Command elevate went on to criticise the Turmoil for Analysis Sense of Defendants, and concluded as follows: “Conclusion In unityance delay the afront, concernssants’ turmoil for analysis sense is yielded in divorce and deprived in divorce. The severicular concernssants are yielded analysis sense on accusers’ First through Tenth Object of Action. The city is yielded analysis sense on the Twelfth Object of Action.
Defendants Rennie, Parks and Barton are yielded analysis sense on accuser’s Eleventh Object of Action. Defendants Lisath, Murray and McKeon are yielded analysis sense on accuser’s Eleventh Object of Exercise insofar as it alleges the overmuch use of vehemence by these concernssants at the police substation succeeding accuser’s stop. The turmoil for analysis sense of concernssants Lisath, Murray and McKeon on accuser’s Eleventh Object of Exercise insofar as accuser alleges the overmuch use of vehemence at the spectacle of the stop is deprived.
It is so ORDERED. ” (sense supplied-the boundary affect exercise Opinion and Command page 19) Rahmaan, hence, has one fostering arrogation left for affliction in the boundary affect exercise. His eleventh object of exercise is set forth in his mended sickness (vision steadfast hereto as Exhibit “C”), and includes delayin his arrogations for waste of affecteous fairs beneath 42 U. S. C. §§1983 and 1985 the overmuch use of vehemence arrogation. Lisath and his sharer were conclusiond a free of all freeable demands beneath 11 U. S. C. 727 on October 4, 2005, in the ocean subject (see vision steadfast hereto as Exhibit “D”). III. Conclusion Presented for Decision (A)Does Rahmann’s fostering arrogation in the boundary affect exercise for overmuch use of vehemence, if Rahmaan predominates at affliction, depute a arrogation or demand which is saveed from free beneath 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6)? (B)Has Rahmaan satisfied his lot of articulating all ancilla postulates expedient for this Affect to yield forfeit sense beneath Rule 7055 Stagnation Rules? IV. Argument 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6) provides as follows: “§523. Exceptions to free. a)A free beneath qualification 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this name does not free an severicular demandor from any demand- …………………………………………………………………………………………. (6) for deattested and intolerant impairment by the demandor to another being or to the peculiaralty of another being;…” Lisath’s free is petty as over Rahmaan’s fostering arrogation for overmuch use of vehemence in the boundary affect exercise for the reasons over amply set forth hereinafter. First, the aloft cited provision saves demands for deattested and intolerant impairment by the Mortgagor to another idiosyncratic or to the peculiaralty of another idiosyncratic.
Under this provision “willful” media earnest or contemplated. In Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 522 U. S. 57, 118 S. Ct. 974, 140 L. Ed. (1998), the Supreme Affect compound the severs expedient to gratify the Qualification 523(a)(6) saveion to freeability. An act (or exclusion) must be graspn delay the express fixed to object impairment. As the Affect famed in its Opinion the engagement “willful” in the aloft-quoted subqualification modifies the engagement “injury,” significance that non-dischargeability grasps a earnest or contemplated impairment rather than narrowly a earnest or contemplated act which leads to impairment.
In In re: Markowitz, 190 F. 3d 455 (6th Cir. , 1999), the Affect had create to use the Geiger rule, and specifically held that the precedent rule set forth in Perkins v. Scharffe, 817 F. 2d 392 (6 Cir. , 1987), was overruled. The Perkins subject had held that deattested and intolerant impairment conciliate appear when one intends the act, despising of whether he intends the consequences. This cupel for the non-dischargeability saveion for deattested and intolerant impairment beneath 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6) homogeneous to the excuse of fitted privilege that was excited in the boundary affect exercise.
Generally, fitted privilege protects a police employmentr from substance sued for his discretionary exercises as desire as the employmentr neither “knew[n] or reasonably should penetratetain known that the exercise he took delayin his orb of authoritative trust would injure the constitutional fairs. . . .affected, or. . . . took exercise delay the intolerant fixedion to object a waste of a constitutional fair. . . . . ” Robinson v. Bibb 840 F. 2d 349, 350 (6th Cir. , 1988) quoting Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308. , 322 95 S. Ct. 992, 1001, 43 L. Ed. 2d (1975).
As the boundary affect set, Rahmaan’s arrogations for overmuch vehemence were “that the concernssants continued to use overmuch vehemence uniform succeeding he [Rahmaan] was wholly noiseless. ” (the boundary affect exercise Opinion and Command page 16). The boundary affect exercise Opinion and Command went on to incorporate that concernssants were “not entitled to fitted privilege on accuser’s arrogations of overmuch vehemence at the spectacle of the stop beneath Qualification 1983 beobject it is flattereous permanent that the use of overmuch vehemence is a permutation of the Fourth Amendment” (the boundary affect exercise Opinion and
Order page 16). Accordingly, by its very kind, the overmuch vehemence arrogation of Rahmaan media that if Rahmaan predominates at affliction he conciliate penetratetain had to demonstrate by a priority that Lisath took exercise accomplished that his exercise would injure Rahmaan’s constitutionally guarded Forth Emendation fairs or delay the intolerant fixedion to object a waste of a constitutional fair, Rahmaan’s contentedion that Lisath continued to use vehemence succeeding Rahmaan was wholly noiseless binds the quittance that such persuade was earnest, contemplated and intolerant, if demonstraten.
Certainly, it could neither penetratetain been narrowly unclean or careless. Similarly, in Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F. 2d 1331 (6th Cir. , 1993), the affect, inhume alia, held that the dismissal of fitted privilege to one of the police employmentr concernssants was to be affirmed. As the affect famed: “There are calm?} unaffected conclusions of esthetic positivety environing whether Authoritative Birberick used overmuch vehemence in agencycuffing Walton.
An overmuch use of vehemence arrogation could be premised on Authoritative Birberick’s agencycuffing Walton if he knew that she had an injured arm and if he believed that she posed no browbeating to him. ” (Walton 1331, ________) In Adams v. Metiva, 31 F. 3d 375 (6th Cir. , 1994), the affect had create to criticise a homogeneous overmuch use of vehemence arrogation. The affect famed that overmuch vehemence arrogations should be considered beneath the Fourth Emendation rule which is one of external lucidity beneath the mode (citing Graham v.
Connor, 490 U. S. 386 ). Suitableness the external rule is applied succeeding a suitablenessout respect to the employmentr’s beneathlying fixed or motivation, beneath the positivetys as incorporated in the boundary affect exercise Opinion and Order, it is constrained to suppose that Lisath and his equal concernssants could penetratetain used overmuch vehemence uniformly Rahmaan was noiseless in any form other than contemplatedly, designedly and intolerantly, turgid that Rahmaan is prosperous in sift-canvassion his evidentiary lot at affliction. A revisal of other authorities does not bind a irrelative quittance.
In Steier v. Best (In re: Best), 109 Fed. Appx. 1. 2004 W. L. 1544066 (6th Cir. , 2004-unreported, see vision steadfast as Exhibit “E”), the Affect incorporated the kinds of demands or arrogations which by their very kind gratify the deattested and intolerant impairment rule of the 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6) saveion: “contemplated nuisance of melting harass, intolerant prosecution, alteration, aggression, sham stop, contemplated biased, and earnestly vandalizing the vindicationant’s ground. ” , Id. at. 4.
The Affect went on to sift-canvass other kinds of arrogations that so confront this rule, noting that the vindicationant must demonstrate that missing was objectd by deattested and intolerant persuade of the demandor, that the demandor’s exercises must be severicularized to be the object of the vindicationant’s impairment and that the impairment must infringe-upon the vindicationant’s constitutional fairs. Id. at 4-5. These cupels do not be-unlike from what Rahmaan must demonstrate to confront his evidentiary lot in the boundary affect exercise to predominate upon his overmuch use of vehemence arrogation.
By their very kind, if Rahmaan predominates, he conciliate penetratetain met every sever forcible in the deattested and intolerant impairment cupel. In Kennedy v. Mustaine, 249 F. 3d 576 (6th Cir. , 2001), the Affect affirmed the stagnation affect and the boundary affect which had set a censure arrogation to be non-dischargeable beneath 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6) and applied principals of conclusion barion to bar re-litigation of whether the propoundments made by the demandor were abusive, past beneath Michigan law they were reckoned censure per se, and hence conclusively presumed to be injurious.
It is respectamply submitted, hence, that Rahmaan has compound enough positivetys and supposing an exuberant setation by submitting the steadfast exhibits to pomp that if he predominates in the boundary affect exercise on his overmuch use of vehemence arrogation, he conciliate penetratetain compound every sever expedient to gratify the 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(6) saveion by a priority of the indication. See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279, 111 S. Ct. 654, 112 L. Ed. 2d 755 (1991). Accordingly, the afront Turmoil does not admit from the defects homogeneous to those sift-canvassed in Cripps v.
Life Insurance Co. of North Am. , 980 F. 2d 56 (2nd Cir. , 1990), cert. deprived, 499 U. S. 929 (1991) or Kring v. Citibank (In Re: Kring), 208 B. R. 73 (B’cy. S. D. Cal. , 1997). Bucolic hereto as Exhibit “F” and made a divorce hereof is the Affidavit of John A. Yaklevich, demonstrateing that Lisath is not an unable idiosyncratic or an infant, and so not in the soldierly use, all as required by B. R. 7055 and by the Servicemembers Courteous Succor Act of 2003, mending and restating, the Solders’ and Sailors’ Courteous Succor Act of 1940 (50 U.
S. C. App. 501, et seq. ). The Turmoil should be yielded and sense penetrateed unityingly. Respectamply submitted, /s/ Daniel K. Friend Daniel K. Friend(0019648) Counsellor for Accuser CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby vouch that gentleman and obsequious copies of the afront Renewed Turmoil for Forfeit Sense were mailed by settled U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the subjoined divorceies in inhumeest at the orationes pompn presently subjoined on _________________: William B.
Logan, Jr. , Esq. 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 U. S. Trustee 170 North High Street, #200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Frank M. Pees, Chapter 13 Trustee 130 East Wilson Bridge Rd. , #200 Worthington, Ohio 43085 Roy J. Lisath, aka Roy Jesse Lisath 2065 Penhook Avenue Lewis Center, Ohio 43035 James E. Nobile, Esq. Nobile, Needleman & Thompson, LLC 4511 Cemetery Road, Suite B Hilliard, Ohio 43026 /s/ Daniel K. Friend Daniel K. Friend(0019648) Counsellor for Plaintiff