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
2021-11-09
Status
CLOSED
Type
Civil Boardman
Docket
35 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
Hall, Lawrence
Defendant
Musleh, Ahmad
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- COMPLAINT FILED BY Attorney: ROHRBAUGH II, ROBERT J (71668). $15000.00 PLUS COSTS, REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES. MKD Receipt: 281081 Date: 11/09/2021
- ALIAS REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED MAIL TO AN ADDITIONAL ADDRESS: BY Attorney: ROHRBAUGH II, ROBERT J (71668). MKD Receipt: 282211 Date: 12/14/2021
- Issue Date: 11/12/2021 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $ MUSLEH, AHMAD 7580 EISENHOWER DR BOARDMAN, OHIO 44512 Tracking No: 9414726699042185733556 MUSLEH, AHMAD C/O CHURCHILL MOTORS 1480 CHURCHILL HUBBARD RD YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44505 Tracking No: 9414726699042185733563
- QUESTIONABLE SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 11/12/2021 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : Return : 11/15/2021 On : MUSLEH, AHMAD Signed By : SIGNED BY MAIL CARRIER? Reason : (B) QUESTIONABLE Comment : Tracking #: 9414726699042185733563
- UNSUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 11/12/2021 Service : SUMMONS ISSUED Served : Return : 12/01/2021 On : MUSLEH, AHMAD Signed By : Reason : (B) UNSUCCESSFUL Comment : Tracking # : 9414726699042185733556
- ANSWER FILED
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL (B) Date: 03/07/2022 Time: 9:45 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ROBERT J ROHRBAUGH II COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: N/A 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: 07/11/2022 Time: 10:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2 Result: UNAVAILABILITY OF COURT
- DUE TO THE UNAVAILABILTY OF THE COURT, HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 11, 2022 HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED. NEW HEARING NOTICES HAVE BEEN MAILED OUT. /S/DJD/MKD
- HEARING SCHEDULED The following event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) scheduled for 07/11/2022 at 10:30 am has been rescheduled as follows: Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 07/25/2022 Time: 10:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2 Result: CONTINUED
- HEARING SCHEDULED The following event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) scheduled for 07/25/2022 at 10:00 am has been rescheduled as follows: Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 08/22/2022 Time: 10:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL (B) Date: 08/22/2022 Time: 11:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED AND GRANTED BY AHMAD MUSLEH. OK PER MAGISTRATE TO CONTINUE FOR 30 DAYS. MKD
- MAGISTRATES DECISION: THE PROCEEDINGS This matter came on for trial on August 22, 2022 on the Plaintiff’s Complaint filed November 9, 2021. PRESENT WERE Plaintiff, Lawrence Hall, and his counsel, Robert J. Rohrbaugh II, Esq. Defendant, Ahmad Musleh, appeared as a self-represented litigant FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 8, 2021 although the case docket reflects in error November 9, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant hired him to provide home-improvement services for the agreed sum of 5,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that all services were performed in a workmanlike manner but that the defendant refused to pay for the services performed. Plaintiff requests judgment in the amount of $15,000.00 plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs. The defendant filed an answer on December 6, 2021 asserting that the plaintiff’s services were not proper and the work was incomplete. 2. Sworn testimony was taken from both parties with exhibits submitted and received. Initially called to testify was the plaintiff. He testified that the defendant hired him to renovate 39 Indianola, Youngstown, Ohio. By his testimony he painted all of the bedrooms in the upstairs of the premises, installed a new kitchen floor, installed kitchen cabinets, and performed all plumbing services in the house. He maintained that $5,000.00 was the agreed budget to make the residence livable. 3. Submitted at that time was Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, document consisting of 14 pages. The first 2 pages of Plaintiff’s Exhibit A reflect five handwritten invoices from a “Larry’s Repair” totaling $2,475.00. The Magistrate notes that the five invoices span a period of August 10, 2021 to August 20, 2021 but do not reference the location where the work was performed nor descriptively relate what services were provided. The Magistrate finds that such invoices do not competently reflect damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. The remaining pages of Plaintiff’s Exhibit A reflect receipts for materials allegedly used by the plaintiff for repairs at the subject premises. Such receipts total $2,254.92 despite plaintiff’s assertion that the cost of materials was $3,716.54. There was no cross examination of the plaintiff and plaintiff rested with submission of Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. 4. Next called to testify was the defendant. The defendant maintained that he was required to “rip out” everything that the plaintiff had installed. He submitted photographs labeled Defendant’s exhibits A through Z. The photographs allegedly depict various areas of the subject premises. The defendant acknowledged that he had no photographs reflecting the condition of the premises before the plaintiff began his services. He further acknowledged that he could not indicate when the photographs had been taken. He acknowledged that the plaintiff had painted in the premises and also provided certain plumbing services. The defendant provided no receipts for any alleged corrections or required materials to address/correct any work performed by the plaintiff. The Magistrate notes that the defendant did not refute the plaintiff’s assertion that the scope of the services by the plaintiff was to result in the premises being deemed “livable”, a term which neither party defined objectively subject. 5. The defendant argued that he received no benefit from the services and materials provided by the plaintiff however offered no evidence in the nature of repair costs to support such assertion. Additionally, even assuming that the defendant’s photographs accurately depicted the condition of the premises after the plaintiff’s services, there were no photographs to reflect the condition of the premises at the time the plaintiff began his services nor cost estimates to correct any work. The magistrate does not find that plaintiff has established a claim for $5,000.00 however does find that he is entitled to some measure of compensation for services in addition to the materials provided in the amount of $2,254.92. The magistrate finds, based upon the demeanor and manner of testifying of both parties, and upon consideration of the totality of the evidence provided, that compensation for services provided in the amount of $1,500.00 is warranted. DECISION 1. Judgment for the plaintiff for $3,754.92 plus statutory interest and costs.
- THE ATTACHED DECISION WAS FILED BY THE MAGISTRATE OF THIS COURT ON AUGUST 30, 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. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF FOR $3754.92 PLUS STATUTORY INTEREST PLUS COSTS. /S/ JOSEPH M HOUSER/MKD
- DEBTOR EXAM REQUESTED BY Attorney: ROHRBAUGH II, ROBERT J (71668). MKD Receipt: 293832 Date: 10/18/2022
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: DEBTORS EXAM (B) Date: 12/05/2022 Time: 9:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 2
- Issue Date: 10/20/2022 Service: DEBTOR'S EXAM ISSUED Method: (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $ MUSLEH, AHMAD C/O CHURCHILL MOTORS 1480 CHURCHILL HUBBARD RD YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44505 Tracking No: 9414726699042185750874
- SUCCESSFUL SERVICE Method : (B) CERTIFIED MAIL Issued : 10/20/2022 Service : DEBTOR'S EXAM ISSUED Served : 10/27/2022 Return : 11/01/2022 On : MUSLEH, AHMAD Signed By : A MUSLEH Reason : (B) SUCCESSFUL Comment : Tracking # : 9414726699042185750874
- DEF FAILED TO APPEAR FOR DEBTOR'S EXAM. CASE CONT 30 DAYS FOR PLTF TO FILE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE. DJD
- CERT. OF JUDGEMENT REQ. Receipt: 299590 Date: 03/08/2023
- CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT ISSUED CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT Sent on: 03/08/2023 13:18:44.63
- CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT RETURNED FILED: MAHONING COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CASE NO 2023 JD 00524, DOCKET 322, PAGE 354, AMOUNT $3909.92. MKD
- $125.00
- $10.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $15.00
- $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
