Harris v. Paris ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Harris v. Paris, 2011-Ohio-6653.]
    Court of Appeals of Ohio
    EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
    No. 97004
    FREDERICK D. HARRIS, M.D.
    PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
    vs.
    E. TASSO PARIS, ESQ.
    DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
    JUDGMENT:
    AFFIRMED
    Civil Appeal from the
    Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
    Case No. CV-749693
    BEFORE: Jones, J., Stewart, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 22, 2011
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Michael D. Rossi
    Guarnieri & Secrest, P.L.L.
    151 East Market Street
    P.O. Box 4270
    Warren, Ohio 44482
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
    Thomas Paris
    Paris & Paris
    55 Public Square
    Suite 1275
    Cleveland, Ohio 44113
    LARRY A. JONES, J.:
    {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Frederick Harris, M.D., appeals the trial court’s judgment
    granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, E. Tasso Paris, Esq. Finding
    no merit to the appeal, we affirm.
    {¶ 2} In 2009, Harris retained the services of Paris to file a lawsuit against the
    doctor’s former attorney, Steve Miller, and Miller’s law firm.   See Frederick D. Harris v.
    Goodman, Weiss & Miller, LLP, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-09-698310.               Paris filed the
    lawsuit not knowing, he avers, that the matter had already been disposed of through binding
    arbitration. Once the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, Paris responded by voluntarily
    dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.       Paris had informed Harris that he was
    dismissing the lawsuit.
    {¶ 3} Harris subsequently hired another attorney to file a professional tort action
    against Paris, which is the subject of this appeal. Paris filed a motion to dismiss and the
    trial court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Both
    parties filed briefs and the trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of
    Paris.
    {¶ 4} Harris now appeals, raising one assignment of error, in which he argues that
    the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Paris.
    {¶ 5} We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same
    standard the trial court used. “Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate
    when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and
    that conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party, said party being entitled to have the
    evidence construed most strongly in his favor.”      Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 
    82 Ohio St. 3d 367
    , 369, 1998-Ohio-389, 
    696 N.E.2d 201
    .
    {¶ 6} Harris argues that because Paris failed to refile the lawsuit within the
    applicable time period, he was barred from pursuing his claims against Miller.              He
    contends that Paris should have pursued his lawsuit because the original arbitration panel
    was improperly composed.       Because the original arbitration panel was comprised of one
    lawyer and two non-lawyers, Harris claims, the panel’s decision should have been set
    aside.1 But there is no evidence before this court regarding the composition or make up of
    1
    Harris originally executed an agreement to arbitrate with the Cuyahoga County Bar
    Association. The agreement provided that if the amount in dispute is over $300, the arbitration
    the arbitration panel.
    {¶ 7} Harris and Miller agreed to submit their fee dispute to binding arbitration. In
    April 2009, Harris executed a consent to arbitration, which stated that he agreed to be
    bound by the rules and regulations of the Legal Fee Dispute Resolution Committee of the
    Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association and further agreed to be bound by and comply
    with the arbitration order.
    {¶ 8} The decision of the arbitrators was binding and Harris did not challenge the
    panel’s decision that neither he nor Miller was entitled to recover any money from the
    other.    If Harris had a problem with the arbitration decision, his recourse was to file a
    motion in common pleas court.2 He did not do so.
    {¶ 9} Harris now claims that the arbitration panel did not have subject matter
    jurisdiction over the fee dispute because the panel was improperly composed of two
    non-lawyers.     Harris’s opportunity to challenge the arbitrator’s decision has passed.
    And he is prohibited from “bootstrapping” his disagreement with the arbitration process to
    a lawsuit against his former attorney.
    {¶ 10} Paris properly dismissed the lawsuit once he found out that Harris’s claim
    against Miller had already been resolved through arbitration.       As the attorney of record,
    panel shall be composed of three members, one of which is a non-lawyer. The subsequent
    agreement he executed was with the newly formed Cuyahoga Metropolitan Bar Association,
    which provided for a different composition based on the amount in dispute.
    2
    R.C. 2711.13 provides that “[a]fter an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to
    the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying,
    or correcting the award as prescribed in sections 2711.10 and 2711.11 of the Revised Code.”
    Paris was obligated to dismiss the claim or risk sanctions for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit.
    See Civ.R. 11.
    {¶ 11} In light of the above, the trial court did not err in granting summary
    judgment in favor of Paris. The sole assignment of error is overruled.
    Accordingly, judgment affirmed.
    It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
    It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga
    County Court of Common Pleas 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.
    LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE
    MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
    EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97004

Judges: Jones

Filed Date: 12/22/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014