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
2021-11-24
Status
CLOSED
Type
Civil Austintown
Docket
41 entries
Disposition
judgment
Parties
Plaintiff
Citibank, N.a.
Defendant
Padula, Anthony
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- $0.00
- Issue Date: 11/30/2021 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (A) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $0.00 PADULA, ANTHONY 218 S. MAIN STREET AUSTINTOWN, OH 44515 Tracking No: 941472669904218572438
- UNSUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (A) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 11/30/2021 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : 12/03/2021 Return : 12/06/2021 On : PADULA, ANTHONY Signed By : ANTHONY PADULA Reason : (A) UNSUCCESSFUL SERVICE Comment : COVID-19 Tracking # : 941472669904218572438
- Issue Date: 12/13/2021 Service: FAILURE OF SERVICE Method: (A) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ CITIBANK, N.A. c/o ATTY: BOKOR, DAVID B 2618 EAST PARIS AVE SE GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546 Tracking No: R000001346
- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FILED BY Attorney: DICKMAN, MATTHEW J (95654)
- ANSWER FILED BY Attorney: DICKMAN, MATTHEW J (95654)
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL Date: 03/18/2022 Time: 9:40 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- NOTICE OF PHONE PRE TRIAL SENT TO ATTY DAVID B BOKOR AND ATTY MATTHEW J DICKMAN
- PERSONAL SERVICE FILED BY Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618) Receipt: 393815 Date: 02/23/2022
- Issue Date: 03/08/2022 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (A) PERSONAL SERVICE Provider: MAHONING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Cost Per: $ PADULA, ANTHONY 218 S. MAIN STREET AUSTINTOWN, OH 44515 Tracking No: P000005247
- PRE-TRIAL HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022. COUNEL FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT (ATTY DAVID B BOKOR). COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PRESENT (ATTY MATTHEW J DICKMAN)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
- SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (A) PERSONAL SERVICE Issued : 03/08/2022 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : 03/18/2022 Return : 03/22/2022 On : PADULA, ANTHONY Signed By : Reason : (A) SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Comment : PERSONAL SERVICE BY OFFICER AT ATP Tracking #: P000005247
- AUSTINTOWN TWP FEES Receipt: 396523 Date: 04/26/2022
- ATP MILEAGE Receipt: 396523 Date: 04/26/2022
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 08/12/2022 Time: 11:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- NOTICE OF CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTY DAVID B BOKOR AND ATTY MATTHEW J DICKMAN
- PER MAGISTRATE: CONTINUANCE GRANTED.
- ENTRY: THIS CAUSE CAME TO BE HEARD UPON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCEE. THIS COURT FINDS THE MOTION TO BE WELL TAKEN AND IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 12, 2022 IS HEREBY CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS. /S/DJD /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- HEARING SCHEDULED-CONTINUED Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 09/16/2022 Time: 11:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4 Result: CONTINUED BY JUDGE
- ENTRY OF 8/8/22 AND NOTICE OF CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTY DAVID B BOKOR AND ATTY MATTHEW DICKMAN
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSTANTER FILED BY Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618)
- LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT INSTANTER GRANTED. /S/ DJD /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY Attorney: HUSPASKA ESQ, ANTHONY (87618)
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON-ORAL HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: 10/07/2022 Time: 11:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- NOTICE OF NON ORAL HEARING AND CANCELLED CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTY DAVID B BOKOR (STENGER & STENGER) AND ATTY MATTHEW J DICKMAN
- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY Attorney: DICKMAN, MATTHEW J (95654)
- FAXED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY Attorney: BOKOR, DAVID B (61515)
- DECISION OF MAGISTRATE: THE PROCEEDINGS This matter came on for non-oral hearing on October 7, 2022 on the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed August 31, 2022, the Defendant's Response filed September 19, 2022 and the Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Response filed October 5, 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 8, 2021. In such complaint plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes plaintiff a sum of money as a result of use of a certain credit card account. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant defaulted under the terms of the credit card agreement and that by virtue of same there is presently an amount due and owing from the defendant of $7,061.36. In its second count plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests judgment for the sum of $7,061.36 in addition to costs with no request for interest. The defendant filed an answer on January 14, 2022 generally denying the 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 maintains that the defendant received the benefit of the line of credit and made various purchases and charges. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant received monthly billing statements. Plaintiff attached in support an affidavit of one, Paula Craven, which affiant indicates that she has personal knowledge of the business records described within the affidavit and that her employment duties include being the custodian of records with respect to accounts owned by Citibank. Attached as Exhibit A to the affidavit is the account statement transaction detail for the period commencing June 1, 2019 to June 15, 2021. Plaintiff maintains there is no genuine issue of material fact and that judgment should be rendered in its favor for such amount. 3. In his response in opposition the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to meet its initial burden of informing the court of the basis for 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 since the action is founded on an account the plaintiff must prove the elements of a contract. The defendant argues that while there may be a contractual agreement and account between the parties the plaintiff has failed to establish the terms of such agreement and that the defendant agreed to be bound by same. The defendant further argues that his signature does not appear on any document or contract. The defendant lastly challenges whether plaintiff's affiant has the necessary personal knowledge regarding the defendant's alleged account. 4. In its reply to the defendant's memorandum the plaintiff argues that the affidavit of its employee, Paula Craven, is properly before the court. Plaintiff argues that its affiant has stated that she has personal knowledge of the manner and method by which the plaintiff creates and maintains its books and records as part of its ongoing business. Plaintiff further argues that its affiant has stated that she is the custodian of records and has access to the account records of the plaintiff. The affiant further indicates that she has personal knowledge of the business records attached to the affidavit and based upon same has knowledge of the defendant's account. Plaintiff thereafter argues that it is not necessary to present a signed credit card agreement as, Credit card agreements are contracts whereby the issuance and use of a credit card becomes a legally binding agreement. Bank One, Columbus, N.A. v. Palmer, 63 Ohio App. 3d 491,493 (1989). Plaintiff maintains therefore that all of same establishes that there is no genuine issue of fact. Plaintiff lastly argues that the defendant has failed to rebut the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 5. 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 Exhibit A , and taking into account that the defendant has filed no affidavit nor provided any evidentiary materials in support of his 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 $7,061.36. DECISION 1. Judgment for the Plaintiff for $7,061.36 plus costs with no award of interest as none has been requested. IT IS SO ORDERED. /S/MAGISTRATE DONALD J DESANTO 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).
- DECISION OF MAGISTRATE SENT TO ATTY DAVID B BOKOR AND ATTY MATTHEW J DICKMAN
- JOURNAL ENTRY ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION: The attached decision was filed by the Magistrate of this Court on 11/4/22. 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
- $125.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $15.00
- $0.00
- $6.00
- $12.00
- $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
