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
2024-07-02
Status
CLOSED
Type
Civil Austintown
Docket
28 entries
Disposition
other terminations
Parties
Plaintiff
Jefferson Capital Systems, Llc
Defendant
Fairfield, Timothy
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- CONTRACT - THE AMOUNT OF $8,307.11 PLUS PLAINTIFF'S COSTS AND INTEREST (8%) Receipt: 434095 Date: 07/02/2024
- Issue Date: 07/02/2024 Service: SUMMONS ISSUED Method: (A) CERTIFIED MAIL Cost Per: $0.00 FAIRFIELD, TIMOTHY 6754 FOX CROSSING COURT YOUNGSTOWN, OH 44515 Tracking No: 941472669904222586738
- $125.00
- ANSWER FILED PRO SE
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL PRE TRIAL Date: 10/11/2024 Time: 9:45 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- ENTRY: PRE TRIAL HELD ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. COUNSEL BRADLEY E SHERMAN FOR PLAINTIFF/PLAINTIFF PRESENT. DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT. 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
- HEARING SCHEDULED-CONTINUED BY THE COURT Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 02/14/2025 Time: 11:30 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4 Result: CONTINUED BY JUDGE
- NOTICE OF CIVIL TRIAL SENT TO ATTORNEY AND DEFENDANT BY REGULAR MAIL
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: CIVIL TRIAL Date: 02/13/2025 Time: 10:45 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4 Result: CONTINUED BY JUDGE
- NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE AND CANCELED DATE SENT TO PARTIES
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON-ORAL HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: 02/07/2025 Time: 11:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- NOTICE OF NON ORAL HEARING SENT TO ATTY BRADLEY E SHERMAN AND TIMOTHY FAIRFIELD
- MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATEON AND STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED BY DEFENDANT TIMOTHY FAIRFIELD PRO-SE
- ENTRY: PLAINTIFF'S MOTOIN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED 1/8/25 AND SET FOR NON ORAL HEARING ON 2/7/25 IS CONTINUED. DEFENDANT FILED A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION O 2/4/25. SUCH MOTION AND THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILL BE SET FOR A CONSOLIDATED NON ORAL HFEARING IN 30 DAYS. /S/DJD /S/JUDGE SCOTT D HUNTER
- HEARING SCHEDULED Event: NON-ORAL HEARING - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: 03/14/2025 Time: 11:00 am Judge: DESANTO, DONALD Location: COUNTY COURT # 4
- ENTRY OF 2/10/25 AND NOTICE OF NON ORAL HEARING SENT TO ATTY BRADLEY E SHERMAN AND TIMOTHY FAIRFIELD
- LEFT MESSAGE REGARDING NON ORAL HEARING ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL FOR DEFENDANT. ADVISED IT IS NON ORAL (NO ONE NEED ATTEND) AND TO CALL AND WE CAN ADVISE WHAT THE MAGISTRATE RULED. MKD
- MAGISTRATE DECISION FILED. The Proceedings This matter came on for non-oral hearing on March 14, 2025 on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed January 8, 2025 and the defendant's motion to compel arbitration filed February 4, 2025. Present Were Neither party nor counsel was required to appear at the matter was considered by way of non-oral hearing. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. The plaintiff filed its complaint on July 1, 2024 indicating that it is successor in interest to Finwise Bank. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant utilized funds from an account with Finwise Bank but has failed to pay an amount due of $8,307.11. Plaintiff has attached to its complaint a bill of sale regarding charge-off loans and accounts receivable that were purchased from the original creditor. Also attached to the complaint is a copy of the promissory note by and between the parties bearing an electronic signature of the defendant and dated May 7, 2021. The defendant filed an answer on August 1, 2024 generally denying the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint. 2. The Magistrate will first consider the defendant's motion to compel arbitration as such a motion appears dispositive of both pending motions before the court. The Magistrate notes that the note by and between the parties contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Reference is directed to Section 17.C. of such note which provides that: Mandatory Arbitration: unless otherwise stated in this arbitration clause, any 'Dispute' between the parties shall, at your or my election, or the election of any of our respective heirs, successors, assigns or related third parties, including Upstart, or any subsequent holder of my Note and their affiliates, subsidiaries, and parents, (the 'Parties'), be resolved by a mutual, binding arbitration, and not by a court of law. . . Such note further provides in section 17. B. That: Dispute: 'Dispute means any action, dispute, claim, or controversy of any kind arising out of, in connection with or in any way related, even indirectly, to the Note or the extension of credit set forth in the Note. . . 3. The clear language of the mandatory arbitration clause reflects that the remedy afforded to the parties where there is a dispute is to engage in binding mutual and neutral arbitration. R.C. 2711.02 provides that: . . . (B) If any action is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with arbitration. . . The Magistrate finds that the issue of nonpayment of a delinquent account as raised in the plaintiff's complaint constitutes a dispute for which the mandatory arbitration clause would provide the parties an exclusive remedy. Based upon such finding the Magistrate finds that consideration of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is not presently within the court's jurisdiction. The Magistrate notes that the plaintiff has filed no response in opposition to Defendant's request to compel arbitration. Decision 1. Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is sustained. This matter is referred to arbitration and further proceedings herein are stayed pending the outcome of such arbitration. The parties are to forthwith take all steps necessary to commence and complete arbitration of the pending issues raised in the plaintiff's complaint. 2. Based upon the findings above the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is held in abeyance and stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. /S/DJD/MKD 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).
- MAIGSTRATE'S DECISION ADOPTED. /S/SDH
- $125.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $0.00
- $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
