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 Mahoning County

Court

Mahoning County

Ohio

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2021-11-05
Status CLOSED
Type Civil Boardman
Docket 43 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.a.
Defendant Gentile, Susan
Photo of Hon. Houser Joseph M

Judge

Hon. Houser Joseph M

Mahoning County (OH)

Ohio

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. $0.00
  2. Issue Date: 11/12/2021 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $ GENTILE, SUSAN 894 PEARSON CIR UNIT 1 YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44512 Tracking No: 9414726699042185733839
  3. QUESTIONABLE SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 11/12/2021 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : 11/15/2021 Return : 11/17/2021 On : GENTILE, SUSAN Signed By : COVID 19 Reason : (B) QUESTIONABLE Comment : COVID 19 Tracking # : 9414726699042185733839
  4. *FAX FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DEFENDANT'S ANSWER SUBMITTED BY Attorney: BROOKES, MARK C (3215)
  5. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL OF RECORD FILED BY ttorney: BROOKES, MARK C (3215). MKD
  6. ANSWER FILED BY Attorney: BROOKES, MARK C (3215). MKD
  7. HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL (B) Date: 03/07/2022 Time: 9:45 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
  8. MOTION APPROVED FOR APPEARANCE OF COUNCIL ATTORNEY MARK C BROOKS. /S/JMH/MKD
  9. NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618)
  10. COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: JOSEPH M JAMMAL ESQ COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:MARK C BROOKS 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/JMH/ DONALD J DESANTO/MKD
  11. HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 07/18/2022 Time: 10:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
  12. MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSTANTER FILED Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618)
  13. JUDGMENT ENTRY: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSTANTER, GRANTED./S/JMH
  14. HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON ORAL HEARING (B) Date: 05/02/2022 Time: 12:00 pm Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
  15. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM CONTRA PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FILED BY Attorney: BROOKES, MARK C (3215). MKD
  16. *ORIGINAL COPY OF DEFENDANT'S MEMORADUM CONTRA PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY ATTY MARK C BROOKES.
  17. JUDGMENT ENTRY: THE PROCEEDINGS This matter came on for non-oral hearing on May 2, 2022 on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 28, 2022 and the Defendant's Memorandum Contra Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 6, 2022. 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. The Plaintiff filed its complaint on November 4, 2021. In such complaint plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes plaintiff the sum of $6,465.50 as a result of nonpayment of a certain credit card account. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant defaulted under the terms of the agreement and that by virtue of same there is presently an amount due and owing from the defendant of $6,465.50. In its second count Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment. Based upon such two counts the plaintiff requests judgment for the referenced sum of $6,465.50 with no request for interest or costs. The defendant filed an answer on December 9, 2021 admitting that she opened an account with the plaintiff, that this court has jurisdiction, that she is a resident of Mahoning County, Ohio and that she used the account at various times but denying the remaining allegations and averments of the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. 2. In its motion for summary judgment plaintiff cites the applicable law regarding the consideration and granting of summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that the defendant applied for and received a charge account from the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that the defendant received the benefit of a line of credit and made various purchases and charges receiving thereafter monthly statements reflecting such purchases and charges. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to make payments on the account. Plaintiff attached in support an affidavit of one, Merari Bonilla Ovando, which affiant indicates that she has personal knowledge of the manner and method by which the plaintiff creates and maintains its business accounts and records. Attached as Exhibit A to the affidavit is the customer agreement alleged to be applicable to the account by and between the plaintiff and the defendant. Attached as Exhibit B to the affidavit is the last periodic billing statement provided to the defendant and the most recent billing statement reflecting any activity initiated by defendant. Plaintiff's affiant indicates that the last payment on the account was on or about August 11, 2020 in the amount of $114.00. The affidavit further indicates the last charge, balance transfer, cash advance or other debit that was initiated by the defendant and charged to the account was on or about September 7, 2020 in the amount of $13.93. Plaintiff maintains there is no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment should be rendered in its favor for the amount of $6,465.50. 3. In her memorandum contra the defendant questions the stated interest rate and interest charge calculation on the statements attached to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that there is no copy of any original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant which contract would have been signed by the defendant at the time of the inception of the account. While the plaintiff has provided an exemplar CMA applicable to defendant's account the defendant argues that this document does not purport to be a copy of the document that was actually provided to her. The defendant further argues that plaintiff has not established a proper account alleging that the amounts shown on the two attached account statements are not provable amounts. The defendant lastly argues that the plaintiff has failed to produce a signed loan agreement pertaining to the account involved or that defendant agreed to a specific interest rate. The magistrate will note however that it is established law that the issuance and acceptance of a credit card account by and between the card issuer and user creates a binding contract. Based upon all of her stated arguments the defendant maintains that there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude summary judgment. 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. Based upon the affidavit of Plaintiff's representative, the documents referenced in such affidavit, being Exhibits A and B , and taking into account that the defendant has filed no affidavit nor provided any evidentiary materials in support of her argument as required by civil rule 56(E), the Magistrate finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the plaintiff is owed the sum of $6,465.50. DECISION 1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for $6,465.50 with no award of interest or costs as none has been requested. IT IS SO ORDERED./S/DJD
  18. *MAGISTRATE DECISION MAILED TO PARTIES
  19. THE ATTACHED DECISION WAS FILED BY THE MAGISTRATE OF THIS COURT ON MAY 26 , 2022 . 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. ACCORDING, 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/ JOSEPH M HOUSER
  20. CERT. OF JUDGEMENT REQ. Receipt: 291265 Date: 08/10/2022
  21. CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT Sent on: 08/10/2022 08:35:29.25
  22. GARNISHMENT FILED BY Attorney: JAMMAL ESQ, JOSEPH M (96514). MKD Receipt: 291582 Date: 08/17/2022
  23. ALIAS REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED MAIL TO EMPLOYER Receipt: 291582 Date: 08/17/2022
  24. Issue Date: 08/18/2022 Service: GARNISHMENT ISSUED Method: (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $ MUNICIPAL ACTION CORPORATION LTD 143 BOARDMAN CANFIELD RD BOARDMAN, OH 44512 Tracking No: 9414726699042185747430
  25. SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 08/18/2022 Service : GARNISHMENT ISSUED Served : 08/20/2022 Return : 08/23/2022 On : MUNICIPAL ACTION CORPORATION LTD Signed By : ANGEL C. Reason : (B) SUCCESSFUL Comment : Tracking #: 9414726699042185747430
  26. RELEASE OF GARNISHMENT FILED BY Attorney: JAMMAL ESQ, JOSEPH M (96514). MKD
  27. RELEASE OF GARNISHMENT GRANTED. /S/JMH/MKD
  28. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT FILED Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618)
  29. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT-THE WITHIN JUDGMENT HAS BEEN FULLY PAID & IS HEREWITH SATISFIED OF RECORD./S/JMH
  30. $125.00
  31. $0.00
  32. $0.00
  33. $0.00
  34. $0.00
  35. $0.00
  36. $0.00
  37. $0.00
  38. $0.00
  39. $5.00
  40. $0.00
  41. $40.00
  42. $10.00
  43. $0.00

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