Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

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.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

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 and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

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
Photo of Cuyahoga County

Court

Cuyahoga County

Ohio

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2023-06-01
Status INACTIVE
Type Miscellaneous Other
Docket 51 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Les Wagenheim Att
Defendant Jill Friedman Helfman|Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Llp
Photo of Hon. DANIEL GAUL

Judge

Hon. DANIEL GAUL

Cuyahoga County (OH)

Ohio

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. ASE FILED: COMPLAINT, SERVICE REQUEST, SERVICE REQUEST
  2. UDGMENT ENTRY(55108206) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: CARYN M GROEDEL [email protected]
  3. UDGMENT ENTRY(55108205) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: CARYN M GROEDEL [email protected]
  4. UDGMENT ENTRY(55108204) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN [email protected]
  5. UDGMENT ENTRY(55108203) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN [email protected]
  6. HIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE COURT ON DEFENDANTS JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN AND TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF, LES WAGENHEIM'S ("PLAINTIFF"), OPPOSITION BRIEF, AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY THERETO. THE PARTIES HAVE BRIEFED THE ISSUES AND THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED ALL ARGUMENTS. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, THE COURT GRANTS DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE PENDING MATTER IS A REFILED CASE. THE ORIGINAL CASE 22-CV-960105 WAS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE FILED MARCH 1, 2022 AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON MARCH 29, 2023. IN THAT CASE, PLAINTIFF ASSERTED THAT HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE VALUE OF STOCK OWNED BY HIS EX-WIFE IN AN UNDERLYING DIVORCE CASE, AND THAT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE OF THE DEFENDANTS LED TO SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL DAMAGE FOR PLAINTIFF WHEN HE SIGNED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING THE MATTER PRIOR TO TRIAL. THIS COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND HIS MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF MARITAL PROPERTY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR RELIEF OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CIV. R. 60(B). THIS COURT THEN GRANTED DEFENDANT CAROL WAGENHEIM'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AS WELL AS DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS. PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT FROM THE DOMESTIC COURT AND THE EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. PLAINTIFF THEN REFILED HIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS WITH THIS COURT ON JUNE 2, 2023, ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, FRAUD AND DECEIT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, AND NEGLIGENT AND/OR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION. 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 NONMOVING PARTY, THAT PARTY BEING ENTITLED TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE CONSTRUED MOST STRONGLY IN HIS FAVOR. HORTON V. HARWICK CHEM. CORP, 73 OHIO ST.3D 679, 1995-OHIO-286, 653 N.E.2D 1196, PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE SYLLABUS (OHIO 1995). THE PARTY MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AND THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. DRESHER V. BURT, 75 OHIO ST.3D 280, 292-293, 1996-OHIO-107, 662 N.E.2D 264, 273-274 (OHIO 1996). "ONCE THE MOVING PARTY SATISFIES ITS BURDEN, THE NONMOVING 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.' CIV. R. 56(E); MOOTISPAW V. ECKSTEIN, 76 OHIO ST.3D 383, 385, 667 N.E.2D 1197 (1996). DOUBTS MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY. MURPHY V. REYNOLDSBURG, 65 OHIO ST.3D 356, 358-359, 604 N.E.2D 138 (1992).'" COLLIER V. LIBATIONS LOUNGE, LLC., 8TH DIST. CUYAHOGA NO. 97504, 2012-OHIO-2390, 7. IN ORDER TO SUCCEEED ON A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, "A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW (1) THAT THE ATTORNEY OWED A DUTY OR OBLIGATION TO THE PLAINTIFF, (2) THAT THERE WAS A BREACH OF THAT DUTY OR OBLIGATION AND THAT THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY LAW, AND (3) THAT THERE IS A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF AND THE RESULTING DAMAGE OR LOSS." VAHILA V. HALL, 77 OHIO ST. 3D 421, 674 N.E.2D 1164, 1997 OHIO LEXIS 292, 1997-OHIO-259. WITH REGARD TO OTHER CLAIMS ASSERTED IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE, THE EIGHTH DISTRICT HAS DETERMINED THAT "A CAUSE OF ACTION WILL BE SUBSUMED INTO A MALPRACTICE CLAIM IF IT ARISES OUT OF "THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTED THE CLIENT." QUOTING MUIR, 4 OHIO APP.3D AT 90, 446 N.E.2D 820. THIS STANDARD FOCUSES ON WHETHER THE CLAIM INVOLVES PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS A NARROWER FOCAL POINT THAN MERELY DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP." DOTTORE V. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, L.L.P., 2014-OHIO-25, 2014 OHIO APP. LEXIS 17, 2014 WL 72538. THE COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS II- V REGARDING DEFENDANT HELFMAN'S ACTIONS AND/OR OMISSIONS IN THE DIVORCE CASE ARISE OUT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH DEFENDANT HELFMAN REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF DURING THOSE PROCEEDINGS, AND ARE AT THEIR ESSENCE PART AND PARCEL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM. AS TO THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JILL FRIEDMAN HELFINAN AND TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, PLAINTIFF IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY THAT BOEING STOCK WAS MARITAL PROPERTY INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN FROM HIM DURING DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT HE WAS FINANCIALLY DAMAGED DUE TO THE ALLEGED DECEPTION. IN FACT, ON APPEAL, THE EIGHTH DISTRICT STATES THAT "BECAUSE HUSBAND PRESUMABLY REVIEWED THE TAX RETURN BEFORE SIGNING IT, 'DUE DILIGENCE WOULD DICTATE THAT [HUSBAND] SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE STOCK WHEN HE SIGNED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTRY OF DIVORCE.' ACCORDINGLY, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS SUBJECTED TO CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER JUDGMENT THAT HE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO FORESEE OR CONTROL." THEREFORE, HE IS UNABLE TO SHOW HARM OR DAMAGES FROM ANY ALLEGED LEGAL MALPRACTICE. THE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN AND TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP ARE THEREFORE WITHOUT MERIT. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AS TO COUNTS I-V OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDGMENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R. 5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE. THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J MCGINTY. NOTICE ISSUED
  7. TATUS CONFERENCE HELD ON 08/08/2024. ALL COUNSEL PRESENT. DISCOVERY IS ONGOING. DEFENDANT'S EXPERT REPORT DUE 12/02/2024. FINAL PRETRIAL SET FOR 02/24/2025 AT 01:30 PM. AS OF THE DATE OF THE CMC, PARTIES MAY APPEAR BY PHONE BY CALLING INTO THE TELECONFERENCE AT 978-990-5135 WITH ACCESS CODE 4088405#. HOWEVER THE COURT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONVERT THE TELEPHONE FINAL PRETRIAL TO AN IN-PERSON FINAL PRETRIAL WITH THE JUDGE AND COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES. COUNSEL WILL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGE IN THE ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT WITH AMPLE TIME TO PREPARE. WHETHER THE FINAL PRETRIAL TAKES PLACE VIA PHONE OR IN-PERSON, ALL OTHER PARTIES AND CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE WITH FULL, FINAL, AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY. IF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATION, COMMON CARRIER, OR OTHER ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, THEN THE CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE THE PERSON WITH FULL, FINAL, AND IMMEDIATE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A BINDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE BY ANY PARTY/REPRESENTATIVE WITH FULL, FINAL, AND IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER AND MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AN AWARD OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES INCURRED BY THE OTHER PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONFERENCE, AS WELL AS OTHER APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE NONCOMPLYING PARTY AND/OR COUNSEL. JURY TRIAL SET FOR 03/24/2025 AT 10:00 AM. PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TRIAL BRIEFS, MOTIONS IN LIMINE, JURY INTERROGATORIES AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS, NO LATER THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. TRIAL BRIEFS ARE TO INCLUDE: A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS; A DISCUSSION OF THE CONTROLLING LAW; ANY STIPULATIONS; WITNESS LIST ALONG WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS; EXHIBIT LIST CONTAINING A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EACH EXHIBIT. WITNESSES OR EXHIBITS NOT LISTED IN THE TRIAL BRIEF SHALL NOT TESTIFY OR BE INTRODUCED AT TRIAL ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. OPPOSING BRIEFS TO MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS BEFORE TRIAL. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO CONFER WITH ONE ANOTHER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED JURY INTERROGATORIES/INSTRUCTIONS, WITH A VIEW TO REACHING AGREEMENT ON INTERROGATORIES/INSTRUCTIONS TO BE REQUESTED. THE INTERROGATORIES/INSTRUCTIONS AGREED UPON BY ALL COUNSEL SHALL BE IDENTIFIED. DISPUTED INTERROGATORIES/INSTRUCTIONS SHALL LIKEWISE BE IDENTIFIED ALONG WITH SEPARATE CITATION TO LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR EACH. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT A COPY OF THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, INTERROGATORIES AND VERDICT FORMS ARE EMAILED IN WORD FORMAT TO THE STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEAST FOURTEEN (14) DAYS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE. EXHIBITS SHALL BE BOUND AND MARKED BEFORE TRIAL AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT PRIOR TO TRIAL. EACH PARTY SHALL INCLUDE AS ONE OF THEIR EXHIBITS THE CURRICULUM VITAE OF ANY EXPERT(S) THAT MAY BE CALLED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AT TRIAL FOR THE USE OF THE COURT. ALL POSSIBLE STIPULATIONS ARE TO BE MADE PRIOR TO TRIAL. PARTIES SHALL PREPARE A STIPULATED STATEMENT OF THE CASE FOR THE COURT TO READ TO THE JURY PURSUANT TO CIV. R. 47(A). A PRE-TRIAL MOTION HEARING MAY BE SCHEDULED BY THE COURT. IN THE EVENT THE COURT IS ENGAGED IN TRIAL THIS MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO A VISITING JUDGE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS OR DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE. THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE TIMOTHY J MCGINTY. NOTICE ISSUED
  8. TATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 08/08/2024 AT 10:00 AM. TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 8/8/24 AT 10:00 A.M. PARTIES CAN ACCESS THE CONFERENCE BY CALLING 978-990-5135 AND ENTERING ACCESS CODE 4088405# NOTICE ISSUED
  9. OTION FILED FOR P1 LES WAGENHEIM CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FIVE PAGES IN EXCESS OF WHICH IS PERMITTED BY RULES, FILED 03/08/2024, IS GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE JANET R BURNSIDE. NOTICE ISSUED
  10. MC BY PHONE SCHEDULED FOR 03/26/2024 AT 10:00 AM IS CANCELLED.
  11. ENERAL PLEADING FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN(D1) and TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP(D2) ATTORNEY TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN 0031069 DEFENDANTS HELFMAN AND TAFT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  12. OTICE FILED BY P1 LES WAGENHEIM ATTORNEY CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS TO HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  13. OTION FILED FOR P1 LES WAGENHEIM CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FIVE PAGES IN EXCESS OF WHICH IS PERMITTED BY RULES 03/13/2024 - GRANTED
  14. OTICE FILED BY P1 LES WAGENHEIM ATTORNEY CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING EXPERT REPORT
  15. OTION FILED FOR P1 LES WAGENHEIM CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56 MOTION FOR THREE-WEEK ENLARGEMENT TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORT AND-OR TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED 02/15/2024, IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE THROUGH MARCH 7, 2024, TO FILE AN OPPOSITION BRIEF TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE COURT NOTES THAT WHILE PLAINTIFF MAY PROVIDE AN EXPERT REPORT, SUCH A REPORT DOES NOT REPLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FILE AN OPPOSITION BRIEF BY MARCH 7, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS ENTRY TAKEN BY JUDGE JANET R BURNSIDE. NOTICE ISSUED
  16. ENERAL PLEADING FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN(D1) and TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP(D2) ATTORNEY TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN 0031069 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56 MOTION FOR EXTENSION
  17. OTION FILED FOR P1 LES WAGENHEIM CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131 PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56 MOTION FOR THREE-WEEK ENLARGEMENT TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORT AND-OR TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 02/20/2024 - GRANTED
  18. FFIDAVIT FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN(D1) and TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP(D2) ATTORNEY TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN 0031069 AFFIDAVIT OF JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN
  19. OTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED DEFENDANTS HELFMAN AND TAFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM 10/18/2024 - GRANTED
  20. DISPOSITIVE MOTION SCHEDULE IS HEREBY SET AS FOLLOWS: MOTIONS DUE: 1/19/2024 OPPOSITION BRIEFS DUE: 2/19/2024 REPLY BRIEFS DUE: 2/29/2024 THE PARTIES SHALL INFORM THE COURT IF DISCOVERY CONDUCTED IN THE PRIOR FILING OF THIS CASE IS TO BE USED IN THIS REFILED LITIGATION. SUCH USE DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONDUCTING ADDITIONAL NECESSARY DISCOVERY. CMC BY PHONE SET FOR 03/26/2024 AT 10:00 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS. NOTICE ISSUED
  21. HIS CASE IS HEREBY RETURNED TO THE ACTIVE DOCKET. CMC BY PHONE SET FOR 12/18/2023 AT 11:00 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS. NOTICE ISSUED
  22. HIS CASE IS HEREBY STAYED PENDING A DETERMINATION BY THE EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE UNDERLYIING DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE. THE PARTIES SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT ONCE A DECISION IS ISSUED SO THAT THIS CASE MAY BE REACTIVATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. NOTICE ISSUED
  23. ASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/12/2023 AT 11:00 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS. NOTICE ISSUED
  24. MC BY PHONE SCHEDULED FOR 09/20/2023 AT 10:00 AM IS CANCELLED.
  25. 1 LES WAGENHEIM'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CARYN M GROEDEL 0060131. ^F^ PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONTINUE SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 01/17/2024 - MOOT
  26. MC BY PHONE SET FOR 09/20/2023 AT 10:00 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS. NOTICE ISSUED
  27. MC BY PHONE SCHEDULED FOR 08/29/2023 AT 10:30 AM IS CANCELLED.
  28. CHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR GROEDEL/CARYN/M 08/07/2023 17:01:47
  29. CHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR SULLIVAN/TIMOTHY/C 08/07/2023 17:01:47
  30. MC BY PHONE SET FOR 08/29/2023 AT 10:30 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER (978) 990-5135 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4088405# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS.
  31. NSWER FILED BY DEFENDANT(S) JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN(D1) and TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP(D2) ATTORNEY TIMOTHY C SULLIVAN 0031069 ANSWER OF JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN AND TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
  32. SPS RECEIPT NO. 50821371 DELIVERED BY USPS 06/15/2023 TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP PROCESSED BY COC 06/21/2023.
  33. ERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NO. 50821370 RETURNED BY U.S. MAIL DEPARTMENT 06/13/2023 TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP MAIL RECEIVED AT ADDRESS 06/21/2023 TENDERED TO AGENT FOR FINAL DELIVERY
  34. SPS RECEIPT NO. 50821369 DELIVERED BY USPS 06/15/2023 FRIEDMAN HELFMAN/JILL/ PROCESSED BY COC 06/21/2023.
  35. UMS COMPLAINT(50821371) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP 200 PUBLIC SQUARE SUITE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH 44114
  36. UMS COMPLAINT(50821370) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP TRACEY PUTHOFF C/O TAFT STETTINIUS 425 WALNUT STREET STE 1800 CINCINNATI, OH 45202-0000
  37. UMS COMPLAINT(50821369) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: JILL FRIEDMAN HELFMAN TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 PUBLIC SQUARE, SUITE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH 44114
  38. UMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  39. UMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  40. RIT FEE
  41. RIT FEE
  42. RIT FEE
  43. UDGE KELLY ANN GALLAGHER ASSIGNED (RANDOM); RE-FILED CASE, REASSIGNED TO ORIGINAL JUDGE, JUDGE DANIEL GAUL
  44. UDGE KELLY ANN GALLAGHER ASSIGNED (RANDOM)
  45. EGAL RESEARCH
  46. EGAL NEWS
  47. EGAL AID
  48. OURT SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
  49. OMPUTER FEE
  50. LERK'S FEE
  51. EPOSIT AMOUNT PAID CARYN M GROEDEL

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

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

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more