Talafhah v. Bonetti

[Cite as Talafhah v. Bonetti, 2012-Ohio-2747.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
BASSAM H. TALAFHAH C.A. No. 26093
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
ALBERT E. BONETTI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellee CASE No. 2009-09-6680
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 20, 2012
BELFANCE, Judge.
{¶1} Bassam Talafhah appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint against
Albert Bonetti. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I.
{¶2} On September 9, 2009, Mr. Talafhah filed a complaint against Mr. Bonetti,
alleging that he had retained Mr. Bonetti to represent him in a divorce but that, “[o]n or about
August 1, 2008, [Mr.] Talafhah terminated the attorney-client relationship with [Mr.] Bonetti due
to [Mr.] Bonetti’s ineffective representation.” Mr. Talafhah sought the return of $5,000 of his
retainer, with interest, as well as $125,000 in punitive damages. Mr. Bonetti filed an answer
denying Mr. Talafhah’s allegations and asserting, amongst other defenses, that Mr. Talafhah’s
claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
{¶3} Mr. Bonetti subsequently moved to dismiss Mr. Talafhah’s claims due to the
statute of limitations. In Mr. Talafhah’s response, he stated, “In his motion to dismiss[,] [Mr.
2
Bonetti] states that * * * [my] Complaint should have been filed by August 1, 2009, and [I]
agree[]. [I] filed the complaint on Sept[ember] 9, 2009 * * *.” The trial court subsequently
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
{¶4} Mr. Talafhah has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT
CLAIM IN THEIR (sic) ORIGINAL ANSWER A DEFENSE OF THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IT WAS ONLY AFTER A CLERICAL ERROR
ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT SUDDENLY
MADE THE STATU[T]E OF LIMITATION[S] DEFENSE.
{¶5} Mr. Talafhah argues that Mr. Bonetti waived the affirmative defense of the statute
of limitations because he did not raise it in his answer. Because Mr. Talafhah is pro se, we must
grant him “reasonable leeway” in his arguments. (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Akron v. Harris, 9th Dist. No. 25993, 2012-Ohio-1713, ¶ 8. However, “[a] pro se litigant is not
given greater rights than represented parties, and must bear the consequences of his mistakes.”
(Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id.{¶6} Mr. Talafhah does not argue that the trial court incorrectly determined that his
claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In fact, he conceded that his complaint was filed
more than a month outside the statute of limitations. Instead, Mr. Talafhah’s argument on appeal
is simply that Mr. Bonetti waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in his
answer. However, Mr. Talafhah is incorrect because Mr. Bonetti did list the statute of
limitations as an affirmative defense in his answer.
{¶7} Based on Mr. Talafhah’s limited argument, his assignment of error is overruled.
3
III.
{¶8} The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
EVE V. BELFANCE
FOR THE COURT
WHITMORE, P. J.
DICKINSON, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
BASSAM H. TALAFHAH, pro se, Appellant.
SCOTT A. RILLEY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.