Which Lawyers Win Before Your Judge?
About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.
Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?
How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?
AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Case Information
Filed
2022-10-21
Status
CLOSED
Type
Civil Austintown
Docket
38 entries
Disposition
judgment
Parties
Plaintiff
Absolute Resolutions Investments, Llc
Defendant
Carlevale, Dana
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- $0.00
- Issue Date: 10/21/2022 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (A) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $0.00 CARLEVALE, DANA 333 BEECHCREST AVENUE YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44515 Tracking No: 941472669904220363487
- SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (A) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 10/21/2022 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : 10/22/2022 Return : 10/26/2022 On : CARLEVALE, DANA Signed By : NOT LEGIBLE Reason : (A) SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Comment : Tracking #: 941472669904220363487
- MOTION OF DEFENDANT DANA CARLEVALE FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLEADING INSTANTER FILED BY Attorney: STRAUSS ESQ, KIMBERLY L (75709)
- JUDGMENT ENTRY: UPON APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT DANA CARLEVALE, AND FOR GOOD CUASE SHOWN, DEFENDANT DANA CARLEVALE IS GRANTED LEAVT TO FILE HER ANSWER INSTANTER. SO ORDERED. /S/DJD /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- ANSWER OF DEFENDANT DANA CARLEVALE FILED BY Attorney: STRAUSS ESQ, KIMBERLY L (75709)
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL Date: 02/03/2023 Time: 9:50 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- ENTRY OF 12/5/22 AND NOTICE OF CIVIL PRE TRIAL SENT TO ATTY KIMBERLY L STRAUSS AND ATTY KATHERINE LLOYD CARBONE
- PRE TRIAL HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT (ATTY KATHRINE LLOYD CARBONE). COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (ATTY KIMBERLY L STRAUSS). DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED IN 60 DAYS. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, IF ANY, FILED IN 90 DAYS. TRIAL TO BENCH. SET BENCH TRIAL FOR 120 DAYS. /S/MAGISTRATE DONALD J DESANTO
- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSTANTER FILED BY Attorney: CARBONE, KATHERINE LLOYD (100506)
- LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. /S/DJD /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- HEARING SCHEDULED-CONTINUED BY THE COURT Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 06/16/2023 Time: 11:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4 Result: CONTINUED BY JUDGE
- NOTICE OF CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTY KATHERINE LLOYD CARBONE AND ATTY KIMBERLY STRAUSS
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON-ORAL HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: 03/17/2023 Time: 11:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- NOTICE OF NON ORAL HEARING SENT TO KATHERINE LLOYD CARBONE AND ATTY KIMBERLY L STRAUSS
- DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY Attorney: STRAUSS ESQ, KIMBERLY L (75709)
- MAGISTRATE HAS FILE UNDER REVIEW
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 06/15/2023 Time: 11:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- DECISION OF MAGISTRATE: This matter came on for non-oral hearing on March 17, 2023 on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 13, 2023 and the Defendant’s Brief in Opposition filed March 15, 2023. PRESENT WERE Neither party nor counsel was required to appear as the matter was considered by way of non-oral hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Plaintiff filed its complaint on October 20, 2022. In such complaint plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of an account due and owing from the defendant, having acquired such account from original creditor, U.S. Bank, N.A. d.b.a. Elan Financial Services. Plaintiff asserts the defendant owes plaintiff the sum of $6,918.93 with post-judgment interest of 3% per annum and its costs. The defendant filed an answer on December 5, 2022 generally denying the allegations and averments of the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. 2. In its motion for summary judgment plaintiff cites caselaw and Ohio Civ. R. 56(C) regarding the consideration and granting of summary judgment. Plaintiff attaches in support, as Exhibit I, an “Affidavit of Debt and Ownership of Account” signed by its representative, one, Audrey Fermanich. Such affidavit indicates that the affiant has personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s creation and maintenance of its normal business records, that the plaintiff acquires revolving credit accounts, that the original account was originated by U.S. Bank N.A. d.b.a. Elan Financial Services, that such account was assigned to the plaintiff on July 25, 2022 and that there is a balance owing from the defendant of $6,918.93. Attached as Exhibit II are a host of monthly billing statements reflecting the name of defendant. The Magistrate notes that the affidavit labeled Exhibit I does not mention such statements or incorporate same within the affidavit as true and accurate copies of what they purport to be. As such, the magistrate finds that such statements cannot be considered. See, In re: The State, ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, et al., 66 Ohio St. 2d 459 (1981). See also, Civil Rule 56(C). 3. In her brief in opposition the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden of informing the court of the basis of its motion for summary judgment and to reference parts of the record showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to attach a complete copy of the applicable account and record of payments. Defendant asserts that the plaintiff failed to provide a payment history or full accounting beginning with a zero balance or some other provable sum. The defendant has attached no affidavit to her brief in opposition. 4. Civil Rule 56(E) provides that, “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against a party. (emphasis added) Often the failure to file an affidavit, relying instead to rest upon the mere allegations or denials of a party’s pleadings, results in an order granting summary judgment on the basis that no genuine issue exists as to material fact. Such an order however is not appropriate in this case. As indicated above, documents which might establish the balance owing have not been incorporated within a properly framed affidavit and as such do not constitute that type of material able to be considered as per Civil Rule 56 (C). There is a genuine issue regarding the amount that is owing and whether any such amount properly takes into account any payments. DECISION 1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is overruled. 2. Trial to be set for June 15, 2023 at 11:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. /S/MAGISTRATE DONALD J DESANTO
- DECISION OF MAGISTRATE AND NOTICE OF NEW CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTY KIMBERLY STRAUSS AND ATTY KATHERINE LLOYD CARBONE
- JOURNAL ENTRY ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION: The attached decision was filed by the Magistrate of this Court on 4/14/23. The Court finds that no written objections have been timely filed. The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate’s Decision and finds that such Decision is well supported and there is no error or defect on the face of such Decision. Accordingly, such attached Magistrate’s Decision is adopted in its entirety, pursuant to Civil Rule 53(D)(4), as a permanent Order of the Court. /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- FAXED AGREED ENTRY FILED BY THE PARTIES
- AGREED ENTRY: THE PLAINIFF, ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, BY COUNSEL AND THE DEFENFANT DANA CARLEVALE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR THE SUM OF $6,725.93 , PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 5% PER ANNUM FROM DATE OF JUDGMENT PLUS COURT COSTS, UNTIL THIS JUDGMENT IS SATISFIED. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT DEFENDNAT SHALL PAY $6,725.93 PLUS CURRENT COURT COSTS OF $125.00 AS FOLLOWS: $193.00 SHALL BE DUE ON OR BEFORE 6/28/23. $193.00 PER MONTH, COMMENCING 7/28/23 AND $193.00 BY THE 28TH OF EACH SUBSEQUENT MONTH THEREAFTER UNTIL THE BALANVE IS PAID IN FULL. SEE ENTRY FOR AGREEMENTS. /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT FILED BY Attorney: DE RENZO ESQ, JOSHUA A (97266) Receipt: 418462 Date: 08/21/2023
- CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT Sent on: 08/21/2023 14:01:21.37
- ENTRY OF SATISFACTION FILED Attorney: DE RENZO ESQ, JOSHUA A (97266)
- THE WITHIN JUDGMENT HAS BEEN FULLY PAID AND IS HEREWITH SATISFIED OF RECORD GRANTED. /S/ JUDGE SCOTT HUNTER Attorney: DE RENZO ESQ, JOSHUA A (97266)
- $125.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $5.00
- $0.00
Get Free Case Details
Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.
Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
