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
2024-08-20
Status
INACTIVE
Type
Tort Dental Malpractice
Docket
29 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
Paul Pannell
Defendant
Dr. Jai Chun Dai
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- OMPLAINT FILED. SERVICE REQUEST - SUMMONS BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE DEFENDANT(S).
- LL PARTIES ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY COMMUNICATIONS FROM LITIGANTS OTHER THAT THOSE THAT: (A) ARE IN WRITING; (B) HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES; AND (C) HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT. ANY AND ALL OTHER ATTEMPTS AT COMMUNICATING WITH THE COURT OR COURT STAFF WILL BE DENIED. THE COURT WILL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY EXPARTE OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION WITH ANY PARTY/COUNSEL. PARTIES MAY NOT CONTACT THE COURT BY PHONE OR EMAIL WITHOUT ALL OTHER COUNSEL/PRO SE PARTIES ON THE LINE. NOTICE ISSUED
- UDGMENT ENTRY(55557696) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: PAUL PANNELL [email protected]
- UDGMENT ENTRY(55557695) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: JOSEPH T PALCKO [email protected]
- HIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON DEFENDANT DR. JAI-CHUN DAI'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, FILED 09/23/2024. PLAINTIFF FILED CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT ON 09/25/2024 AND 10/01/2024 WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERS A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION. HOWEVER, IT CAME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THAT SAID CORRESPONDENCE WAS NOT PLACED ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET. ACCORDINGLY, ON 11/07/2024 THE COURT ORDERED THE CLERK OF COURTS TO PLACE ALL FILINGS ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET. FOLLOWING A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON 11/22/2024, THE COURT GRANTED DEFENDANT LEAVE, UNTIL 12/02/2024, TO REPLY TO THE RESPONSE. ON 12/02/2024, DEFENDANT FILED A REPLY BRIEF. CIV.R. 12(C) STATES THAT, "AFTER THE PLEADINGS ARE CLOSED BUT WITHIN SUCH TIME AS NOT TO DELAY THE TRIAL, ANY PARTY MAY MOVE FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS." A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MUST BE GRANTED IF, AFTER VIEWING THE ALLEGATIONS AND REASONABLE INFERENCES IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE NON-MOVING PARTY, THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. CLOUD V. BALDWIN, 8TH DIST. NO. 70795, 1997 OHIO APP. LEXIS 499, AT *3 (FEB. 13, 1997), CITING PETERSON V. TEODOSIO, 34 OHIO ST.2D 161, 297 N.E.2D 113 (1973). "A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS ESSENTIALLY A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AFTER AN ANSWER HAS BEEN FILED." ROTOSOLUTIONS, INC. V. CRANE PLASTICS SIDING, LLC, 2013-OHIO-4343, P15, 2013 OHIO APP. LEXIS 4575, *6-7, 2013 WL 5451702. PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE HELD TO THE SAME RULES, PROCEDURES, AND STANDARDS AS LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. DJL, INC. V. MASSINGILLE, 8TH DIST. CUYAHOGA NO. 9664, 2011-OHIO-6281, PARA. 23, CITING STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448, 800 N.E.2D 25. DEFENDANT MOVES TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 10(D)(2), ALLEGING THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS A DENTAL CLAIM AND THAT DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT. CIV.R. 10(D)(2)(A) PROVIDES "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN DIVISION (D)(2)(B) OF THIS RULE, A COMPLAINT THAT CONTAINS A MEDICAL CLAIM, DENTAL CLAIM, OPTOMETRIC CLAIM, OR CHIROPRACTIC CLAIM, AS DEFINED IN R.C. 2305.113, SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY ONE OR MORE AFFIDAVITS OF MERIT RELATIVE TO EACH DEFENDANT NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FOR WHOM EXPERT TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY." "THE PLAINTIFF MAY FILE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TIME TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT. THE MOTION SHALL BE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF WITH THE COMPLAINT." CIV.R. 10(D)(2)(B). WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CIV.R. 10(D)(2) A MOTION TO DISMISS IS THE PROPER RESPONSE, BECAUSE "IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT" THE COURT IS LEFT ONLY WITH UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT A DEFENDANT COMMITTED MALPRACTICE. FLETCHER V. UNIV. HOSPS. OF CLEVELAND, 120 OHIO ST. 3D 167, 171, 2008-OHIO-5379, P14, 897 N.E.2D 147, 150, 2008 OHIO LEXIS 2917, *8 (OHIO OCTOBER 23, 2008). THOSE ALLEGATIONS "ARE NOT TAKEN AS ADMITTED BY A [CIV.R. 12(B)(6)] MOTION TO DISMISS AND ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND SUCH A MOTION." ID. HOWEVER, A DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT, IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ID. IN THE CASE AT HAND, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, FILED 08/20/2024, AND THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON 10/01/2024, ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT COMMITTED DENTAL MALPRACTICE RELATED TO A TOOTH-PULLING PROCEDURE. NO AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IS ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND AS OF 12/03/2024, NO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO OBTAIN AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT HAS BEEN FILED. PLAINTIFF HAS FURTHER NOT DENIED THAT HE IS BRINGING A DENTAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, OR ARGUED THAT HIS CLAIM IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT REQUIREMENT. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING ALL ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, AND TAKING ALL INFERENCES IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE NON-MOVING PARTY, IT IS CLEAR THAT DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CIV.R. 10(D)(2). DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. COURT COST ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDGMENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R. 5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE. NOTICE ISSUED
- EPLY BRIEF FILED BY D1 DR. JAI - CHUN DAI JOSEPH T PALCKO 0088006 DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
- ASE CALLED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11/22/2024. PLAINTIFF APPEARED PRO SE. DEFENDANT APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S 11/07/2024 ORDER, THE CLERK OF COURTS PLACED SEVERAL FILINGS ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET. ACCORDINGLY, DEFENDANT IS GRANTED LEAVE, UNTIL 12/02/2024 TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO 12/16/2024 AT 11:00 AM. PARTIES CAN ACCESS THE CONFERENCE BY CALLING 605-313-5952 AND ENTERING ACCESS CODE 1742872#. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/16/2024 AT 11:00 AM. NOTICE ISSUED
- ASE CALLED FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 11/05/2024. DEFENDANT APPEARED THROUGH COUNSEL. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR BY PHONE, BUT ATTEMPTED TO APPEAR IN PERSON, PRO SE. THE COURT INFORMED THE PARTIES THAT CORRESPONDENCE WAS FILED BUT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DOCKET. THE CLERK OF COURTS IS HEREBY ORDERED TO PLACE ALL FILINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED IN THIS MATTER, FROM EITHER PARTY, ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET. IN ADDITION, THE CLERK IS ORDERED TO PLACE ALL FUTURE FILINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM ALL PARTIES ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET, UNLESS ORDERED OTHERWISE. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO 11/22/2024 AT 9:00 AM. PARTIES CAN ACCESS THE CONFERENCE BY CALLING 605-313-5952 AND ENTERING ACCESS CODE 1742872#. PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE REMINDED THAT THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME RULES, PROCEDURES, AND STANDARDS AS LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. DJL, INC. V. MASSINGILLE, 8TH DIST. CUYAHOGA NO. 9664, 2011-OHIO-6281, PARA. 23, CITING STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448, 800 N.E.2D 25. THE COURT SITS AS AN IMPARTIAL ARBITER AND ALL LITIGANTS WILL BE TREATED EQUALLY. THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER COMMUNICATIONS FROM LITIGANTS OTHER THAT THOSE THAT: (A) ARE IN WRITING; (B) HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES; AND (C) HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT. ANY AND ALL OTHER ATTEMPTS AT COMMUNICATING WITH THE COURT OR COURT STAFF WILL BE DENIED. FAILURE OF ANY PARTY TO APPEAR AT ANY SCHEDULED DATE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER MAY RESULT IN AN ADVERSE RESULT FOR THE NON-APPEARING/NON-COMPLYING PARTY, I.E., THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE BEING DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, OR JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/22/2024 AT 09:00 AM. NOTICE ISSUED
- CHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR PANNELL/PAUL/ 10/04/2024 17:02:03
- CHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR PALCKO/JOSEPH/T 10/04/2024 17:02:03
- ASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 11/05/2024 AT 09:30 AM. THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD BY PHONE. PARTIES CAN ACCESS THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BY CALLING 605-313-5952 AND ENTERING ACCESS CODE 1742872#. PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 26, THE PARTIES MUST MEET AND CONFER NO LATER THAN 21 DAYS BEFORE THE CMC. THE PARTIES MUST FILE A DISCOVERY PLAN WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THEIR CONFERENCE. EACH PARTY MUST PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO THE OTHER PARTIES BY THE DATE OF THE CMC UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A LATER DATE.
- XHIBITS
- ORRESPONDENCE FROM PLAINTIFF
- 1 DR. JAI - CHUN DAI'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. JOSEPH T PALCKO 0088006 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
- NSWER FILED BY D1 DR. JAI - CHUN DAI ATTORNEY JOSEPH T PALCKO 0088006 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
- ORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED TO THE CLERK OF COURTS FROM PAUL PANNELL. PRO SE (9999999)
- SPS RECEIPT NO. 54607599 DELIVERED BY USPS 08/26/2024 DAI/DR. JAI - CHUN/ PROCESSED BY COC 09/04/2024.
- HIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY, FILED 08/20/2024. R.C. 2323.311 REQUIRES AN APPLICANT TO FILE WITH THE COURT AN AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY WITH THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE IF THE APPLICANT QUALIFIES AS AN INDIGENT LITIGANT. PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ABOUT PLAINTIFF'S MONTHLY INCOME, ASSETS, AND EXPENSES. UPON THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT AND THE COURT'S REVIEW, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT AN INDIGENT LITIGANT UNDER R.C. 2323.311. IN ACCORDANCE, THE COURT HEREBY DENIES A WAIVER OF PRE-PAYMENT OF COSTS OR FEES IN THIS MATTER. PURSUANT TO R.C. 2323.311(B)(4), THE APPLICANT IS HEREBY ORDERED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED ADVANCE DEPOSIT OR SECURITY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF JOURNALIZATION OF THIS ORDER AND PRIOR TO ANY DISMISSAL OF THE CASE OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE CASE. NOTICE ISSUED
- UMS COMPLAINT(54607599) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: DR. JAI - CHUN DAI 20508 SOUTHGATE PARK BLVD MAPLE HEIGHTS, OH 44137-0000
- RIT FEE
- UDGE MAUREEN CLANCY ASSIGNED (RANDOM)
- EGAL RESEARCH
- EGAL AID
- OURT SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
- OMPUTER FEE
- LERK'S FEE
- EGAL NEWS
- FFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY, FILED
- ASE FILED
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
