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
2023-01-18
Status
CLOSED
Type
Civil Boardman
Docket
30 entries
Disposition
judgment
Parties
Plaintiff
Boak & Sons, Inc.
Defendant
Zidian Professional Contractors, Llc|Zidian, Jr, Charles P
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- $0.00
- ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS Receipt: 297463 Date: 01/18/2023
- Issue Date: 01/19/2023 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $ ZIDIAN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS, LLC C/O CHARLES P ZIDIAN JR PO BOX 3953 YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44503 Tracking No: 9414726699042203611330 ZIDIAN JR, CHARLES P 7345 EAST PARKSIDE DRIVE BOARDMAN, OH 44512 Tracking No: 9414726699042203611347
- UNSUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 01/19/2023 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : Return : 02/09/2023 On : ZIDIAN JR, CHARLES P Signed By : UNCLAIMED Reason : (B) UNSUCCESSFUL Comment : UNCLAIMED Tracking # : 9414726699042203611347
- UNSUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 01/19/2023 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : Return : 02/13/2023 On : ZIDIAN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS, LLC Signed By : UNCLAIMED Reason : (B) UNSUCCESSFUL Comment : UNCLAIMED Tracking # : 9414726699042203611330
- PERSONAL SERVICE HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY:VAttorney: MCNALLY IV, JOHN A (67328). MKD Receipt: 299996 Date: 03/15/2023
- BOARDMAN TWP FEES FOR PERSONAL SERVICE. SERVED TO CHARLES ZIDIAN JR C/O KAYLEIGH M ZIDIAN ON 2/27/23 BY SGT GRIMES 2011. MKD Receipt: 299996 Date: 03/15/2023
- INVOICE ISSUED CIVIL INVOICE Sent on: 03/01/2023 09:39:42.26
- ANSWER FILED
- MOTION TO DISMISS CHARLES P ZIDIAN JR PERSONALLY FILED Attorney: ESSAD, SCOTT (67352)
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL (B) Date: 06/26/2023 Time: 9:45 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- PLAINTIFFS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CHARLES P ZIDIAN JRS MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY Attorney: MCNALLY, JAMES M. (16514)
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON ORAL HEARING (B) Date: 05/22/2023 Time: 12:00 pm Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- MAGISTRATES DECISION THE PROCEEDINGS This matter came on for non-oral hearing on May 22, 2023 on the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr., filed March 31, 2023 and the Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition filed April 17, 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 1. Plaintiff filed its two count complaint on January 18, 2023 alleging unpaid balances for insulation services provided by plaintiff to Defendants at two separate locations. In count one plaintiff asserts that the sum of $5,595.00 is owed for work performed at 833 Harbour Lights Blvd., Columbiana, OH. In count two plaintiff asserts that the sum of $4,490.00 is owed for work performed at 1009 Waters Edge Dr., Columbiana, OH. The plaintiff requests judgment for such sums against defendants, Zidian Professional Contractors, LLC and Charles P. Zidian, Jr., jointly and severally. Defendant, Zidian Professional Contractors, LLC, filed an answer on March 31, 2023 admitting and denying the various paragraphs of the plaintiff's complaint and asserting a host of affirmative defenses. 2. In his motion to dismiss the defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr., argues that there is no legal justification for his inclusion in the current lawsuit. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has alleged no facts which would give rise to any personal liability on the part of such individual defendant. The defendant then indicates there is nothing raised within the complaint, more specifically any allegations of fraud or illegal acts, which would justify piercing the corporate veil so as to impose personal liability. The defendant cites in support the Ohio Supreme Court decision of Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, 1993 Ohio 119, 617 N.E. 2d 1075. The defendant maintains that the plaintiff's complaint is simply for breach of contract and, there being no acts asserted constituting illegal or fraudulent conduct which would impose personal liability upon him, the complaint should be dismissed as to him personally. 3. In its brief in opposition the plaintiff argues that is not required to prove its case at the pleading stage. The plaintiff argues that the court is required to review only the complaint and dismiss if it appears beyond a doubt the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling it to recover. The plaintiff cites in support the Ohio Supreme Court case of O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St. 2d 242, 327 N.R. 2d753 (1975). Plaintiff further argues that discussion of piercing the corporate veil is premature. 4. The Magistrate has reviewed the plaintiff's complaint and attachments referenced therein. The Magistrate notes that the sole assertion within the complaint against the defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr., states in totality the following: 3. At all times relevant herein, Defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr. conducted his business as a residential housing contractor under the name Zidian Professional Contractors, LLC from the address of 7345 Parkside Dr., Boardman, Ohio 44512. Both proposals attached to the plaintiff's complaint are addressed to Zidian Contractors with an address of Box 3953, Youngstown, Ohio, 44513. While there are certain email communications attached and referenced in the plaintiff's complaint the Magistrate notes that there are no allegations or assertions rising to the level of illegality or fraudulent conduct necessary to assert a claim for piercing the corporate veil. 4. The magistrate notes that Belvedere, cited above, requires some allegation of corporate malfeasance in order to support a claim of piercing the corporate veil. As noted in Wilton Corp. v. Ashland Castings Corp., 188 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1999), a simple breach of contract cannot suffice as the type of 'illegal' or fraudulent act intended by the court in Belvedere . . . Id., p.674. 5. In York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St. 3d 143 (1991) the Ohio Supreme Court addressed 12 (B)(6) motions and held: In O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 242, 71 O.O. 2d 223, 327 N.E. 2d 753, this court set forth the standard for granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6). Specifically, the court held that in order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it must appear "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" O'Brien at 245, 71 O.O. 2d at 224, 327 N.E. 2d at 755, citing Conley v. Gibson (1957), 355 U.S. 41, 45. In the recent case of Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St. 3d 190, 532 N.E. 2d 753, we elaborated upon this standard, noting that "[i]n construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. at 192, 543 N.E. 2d at 756, citing 2A Moore, Federal Practice (1985) 12-63, Paragraph 12.07 [2.-5]. This standard for granting a motion to dismiss is in accord with the notice pleading regimen set up by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and incorporated into the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Under these rules, a plaintiff is not required to prove his or her case at the pleading stage. Very often, the evidence necessary for a plaintiff to prevail is not obtained until the plaintiff is able to discover materials in the defendant's possession. If the plaintiff were required to prove his or her case in the complaint, many valid claims would be dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of access to relevant evidence. Consequently, as long as there is a set of facts, consistent with the plaintiff's complaint, which would allow the plaintiff to recover, the court may not grant a defendant's motion to dismiss. Id., pgs. 144,145 (emphasis added). 5. While the magistrate acknowledges the plaintiff's position that it need not prove its case in its initial pleading it does not follow that a motion to dismiss will not lie where the complaint is devoid of any factual basis upon which to assert a claim. The plaintiff's complaint in this matter raises no factual assertions establishing a claim against the defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr., personally. Reading the complaint in full, presuming all factual allegations as true, and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the magistrate finds that there is no set of facts upon which the plaintiff would recover against the defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr., personally. DECISION 1. Case dismissed at Plaintiff's costs as to Defendant, Charles P. Zidian, Jr. IT IS SO ORDERED. __________________ ______________________________ Date Donald J. DeSanto, Magistrate Pursuant to Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) a party shall not assign as error the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civil Rule 53(D)(3)(b).
- CASE DISMISSED AS TO DEFENDANT CHARLES P ZIDIAN JR. /S/JMH/MKD
- COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: JOHN A MCNALLY IV COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: SCOTT ESSAD DISCOVERY TO BE COMPLETED IN:60 DAYS DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS, IF ANY, IN:90 DAYS TRIAL TO:BENCH SET FOR BENCH TRIAL IN:120 DAYS OTHER: /S/ DONALD J DESANTO/ MKD
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 10/30/2023 Time: 10:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2 Result: CONTINUED
- *CASE CONTINUED FOR A FINAL 30 DAY PERIOD ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION. SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS ARE PENDING./S/DJD
- HEARING SCHEDULED The following event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) scheduled for 10/30/2023 at 10:00 am has been rescheduled as follows: Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 12/04/2023 Time: 9:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2 Result: DISMISSED
- NOTICE OF DISMISSAL FILED BY Attorney: MCNALLY IV, JOHN A (67328). MKD
- DISMISSAL ENTRY - CASE DISMISSED. /S/JMH/MKD
- $125.00
- $10.00
- $15.00
- $2.20
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $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
