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.
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
Case Information
Filed
2025-01-28
Status
INACTIVE
Type
Commercial Docket
Docket
39 entries
Parties
Plaintiff
Accelerated Inventory Management, Llc
Defendant
Mario Wells
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- CASE FILED: COMPLAINT, SERVICE REQUEST
- JUDGMENT AMT: $29,040.83 RENDERED BY: CP CUYAHOGA ORIGINATING CASE NO.: CV25111033 JUDGMENT LIEN CASE#: JL25325737 CREDITOR: ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC DEBTOR: MARIO WELLS INTEREST AT: 8% INTEREST FROM DATE: 11/07/2025 COSTS: 0.00 JUDGMENT DATE: 11/07/2025 DOCKET (JOURNAL): IMAGE PAGE: IMAGE TIME FILED: 12/31/2025 11:21:17 LIEN COST: 25 PAID BY: SANDER LAW, LLC SERIAL NUMBER: ACCOUNT NUMBER:
- REFUND BALANCE OF CASE COST DEPOSIT TO SANDER LAW, LLC
- JUDGMENT ENTRY(58654109) SENT BY REGULAR MAIL SERVICE. TO: MARIO WELLS 3345 EUCLID HEIGHTS BLVD CLEVELAND, OH 44118
- JUDGMENT ENTRY(58654108) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: NEIL C. SANDER [email protected]
- JUDGMENT ENTRY(58654107) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: NEIL C. SANDER [email protected]
- THIS CAUSE IS BEFORE THE COURT ON PLAINTIFF ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT LLC'S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED 8/26/25. THE COURT NOTES THAT PRO SE DEFENDANT WELLS FILED TWO DOCUMENTS ON 9/17/25, WHICH ARE VERY NEARLY IDENTICAL IN SUBSTANCE, AND ENTITLED "PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT." PLAINTIFF THEN FILED A REPLY ON 9/24/25. THE COURT CONSTRUES THE MOTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANT AS A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DEFENDANT'S OWN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, PLAINTIFF ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED AND DEFENDANT WELLS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. UNDER RULE 56, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER IF: (1) THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; (2) THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT; AND (3) CONSTRUING THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN THEREFROM IN FAVOR OF THE NON-MOVING PARTY, REASONABLE MINDS CAN COME TO BUT ONE CONCLUSION, AND THAT CONCLUSION IS ADVERSE TO THE NON-MOVING PARTY. CIV.R. 56(C); TURNER V. TURNER, (1993), 67 OHIO ST.3D. 337, 341. WHEN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS MADE AND SUPPORTED AS PROVIDED IN CIV.R. 56, A NON-MOVANT MAY NOT REST UPON THE MERE ALLEGATION OF HIS PLEADINGS, BUT HIS RESPONSE, BY AFFIDAVIT OR OTHERWISE, MUST SET FORTH FACTS SHOWING THAT THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL. MORRIS V. OHIO CASUALTY INS. CO., (1988), 35 OHIO ST.3D 45, 47. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT PROPERLY RENDERED ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS OR STATEMENTS IN BRIEFS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V. MILLER, (2011), 194 OHIO APP.3D 307, 315. RATHER, THE MOVING PARTY MUST SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY POINTING TO SOME EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE TYPE LISTED IN CIV. R. 56(C). DRESHER V. BURT (1996), 75 OHIO ST.3D 280, 292-93. ONCE THIS BURDEN IS SATISFIED, THE NON-MOVING PARTY BEARS THE BURDEN OF OFFERING SPECIFIC FACTS TO SHOW A GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL. ID., AT 293. IN AUGUST OF 2022, DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED AN ONLINE LOAN WITH FINWISE BANK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,000.00. DEFENDANT MADE A NUMBER OF PAYMENTS ON THE LOAN, THE LAST OF WHICH WAS MADE ON OR IN JUNE 2023. DEFENDANT HAS SINCE DEFAULTED ON THE LOAN, AND THE AMOUNT DUE AND OWING IS $29,040.83. THE LOAN HAS SINCE BEEN SOLD AND TRANSFERRED BY FINWISE BANK TO LENDINGPOINT LLC PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF LOAN SALE, AND THEN AGAIN SOLD AND TRANSFERRED TO PLAINTIFF, NOW THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE LOAN. THE COURT FINDS THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN THE MOTION ESTABLISHES THAT DEFENDANT IS IN DEFAULT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT, FOR FAILING TO MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENTS AND THE DEFAULT HAS NOT BEEN CURED. THE AMOUNT OF $29,040.83 IS DUE AND OWING FROM DEFENDANT. ACCORDINGLY, GIVEN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, PLAINTIFF HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS. ACCORDINGLY, OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION, THIS COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WELLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,040.83 PLUS COSTS AND INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE OF 8% FROM THE DATE OF JUDGMENT. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO JUST CAUSE FOR DELAY. COURT COSTS ASSESSED TO THE DEFENDANT(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
- ANSWER FILED BY P1 ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC ATTORNEY NEIL C. SANDER 0077715 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- D1 MARIO WELLS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED PRO SE 9999999
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED PRO SE 9999999
- PRETRIAL HELD 8/29/25. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPEARED. DEFENDANT WELLS DID NOT APPEAR. THE COURT NOTES PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED 8/26/25. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION ON OR BEFORE 9/24/25. FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION WILL NOT DELAY THE COURT'S INTENTION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON THE MERITS AND ISSUE A RULING FORTHWITH, WHICH COULD RESULT IN JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER AMOUNT. NOTICE ISSUED
- MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
- TELEPHONE PRETRIAL HELD ON 07/14/2025. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT. DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR. A VOICEMAIL WAS LEFT FOR DEFENDANT ADVISING THE THE PRETRIAL WAS PROCEEDING. LITIGATION SCHEDULED AS FOLLOWS: DISCOVERY CUT-OFF IS 08/29/2025. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SHALL SUBMIT DISCOVERY TO DEFENDANT FORTHWITH. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MATTER ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT COULD RESULT IN SANCTIONS, INCLUDING JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED AGAINST HIM. DISPOSITIVE MOTION TO BE FILED BY 09/22/2025. OPPOSITION BRIEF DUE 10/20/25. REPLY DUE 10/27/25. PRETRIAL SET FOR 08/29/2025 AT 01:30 PM. TELEPHONE PRETRIAL. ALL PARTIES TO CONTAC THE COURT AT 605-313-5579, ACCESS CODE 4539808#. CASE STATUS TO BE DISCUSSED AND ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT IS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS. FINAL PRETRIAL SET FOR 12/17/2025 AT 12:30 PM. COURTROOM 16-B. CLIENTS OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT. INFORMATION ON THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS THE COURT UTILIZES IS AVAILABLE ON JUDGE JOHN RUSSO'S WEB PAGE ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE AT HTTPS://CP.CUYAHOGACOUNTY.US/COURT-RESOURCES/JUDGES/JUDGE-JOHN-J-RUSSO/. BENCH TRIAL SET FOR 01/22/2026 AT 09:00 AM. COURTROOM 16-B. IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIV.R. 6, THE COURT ORDERS THAT ANY MOTION IN LIMINE IS TO BE FILED AT LEAST 28 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL. ANY RESPONSE IS DUE 14 DAYS THEREAFTER. NO REPLY SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE COURT ADDITIONALLY ORDERS THAT 14 DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL ALL PARTIES ARE TO FILE THE FOLLOWING: (1) TRIAL BRIEFS, (2) WITNESS LISTS, (3) EXHIBIT LISTS, (4) JURY INSTRUCTIONS, JURY INTERROGATORIES, AND/OR JURY VERDICT FORMS IF APPLICABLE, (5) STIPULATIONS, AND (6) AN AGREED UPON STATEMENT OF THE CASE TO BE READ TO THE JURY. ON THE DATE OF TRIAL, THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE PARTIES PREPARE EITHER A JOINT OR SEPARATE BINDER OF THE EXHIBITS AND PROVIDE COPIES FOR THE COURT, THE WITNESS STAND, AND OPPOSING COUNSEL. NOTICE ISSUED
- TELEPHONE CONFERENCE HELD ON 05/28/2025. ALL PARTIES PRESENT. NEGOTIATIONS ARE ON-GOING. THIS MATTER IS RESET TO ALLOW FOR THE POTENTIAL SUBMISSION OF AN AGREED ORDER. PRETRIAL SET FOR 07/14/2025 AT 09:30 AM. PARTIES TO CONTACT THE COURT AT 605-313-5579, ACCESS CODE 4539808#. IN THE EVENT THAT AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED AND AN ENTRY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, THIS PHONE PRETRIAL WILL BE CANCELLED. NOTICE ISSUED
- CMC BY PHONE HELD ON 04/10/2025. ALL PARTIES PRESENT. PRETRIAL SET FOR 05/28/2025 AT 09:30 AM. PARTIES TO CONTACT THE COURT AT 605-313-5579, ACCESS CODE 4539808#. THE COURT NOTES THAT DEFENDANT WELLS'S INTENTION IS TO PROCEED WITH THIS CASE IN A PRO SE CAPACITY. THE COURT NOTES THAT 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 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. NOTICE ISSUED
- ANSWER . PRO SE (9999999)
- CERTIFICATE REGARDING JUDGE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
- SCHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR WELLS/MARIO/ 03/19/2025 17:02:07
- SCHEDULE ATTORNEY NOTICE. NOTICE GENERATED FOR SANDER/NEIL/C. 03/19/2025 17:02:07
- CMC BY PHONE SET FOR 04/10/2025 AT 10:00 AM. COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES SHALL APPEAR BY PHONE. PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL SHALL LIKEWISE APPEAR BY PHONE. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL CALL THE COURT S CONFERENCE NUMBER (605) 313-5579 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 4539808# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. ALL PARTICIPANTS SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY PROGRESS, AND SCHEDULING MATTERS. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES MUST BE SERVED PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. THE PARTIES MUST ALSO FILE THIS COURT'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. THIS COURT'S TRIAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AT JUDGE JOHN J. RUSSO'S WEBPAGE ON THE COURT'S WEBSITE AT: HTTP://CP.CUYAHOGACOUNTY.US/COURT-RESOURCES/JUDGES/JUDGE-JOHN-J-RUSSO/
- AMENDED ANSWER OF ANSWER. PRO SE (9999999)
- SUMS COMPLAINT(56164234) SENT BY REGULAR MAIL SERVICE. TO: MARIO WELLS 3345 EUCLID HEIGHTS BLVD CLEVELAND, OH 44118 ANSWER DATE: 03/20/2025
- SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
- WRIT FEE
- REQUEST FOR SERVICE FILED REQUEST AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE- ORDINARY MAIL
- CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NO. 55964713 RETURNED 2/13/2025 FAILURE OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WELLS/MARIO/ - UNCLAIMED NOTICE MAILED TO PLAINTIFF(S) ATTORNEY
- PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 4(E). "IF A SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IS NOT MADE UPON A DEFENDANT WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE PARTY ON WHOSE BEHALF SUCH SERVICE WAS REQUIRED CANNOT SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY SUCH SERVICE WAS NOT MADE WITHIN THAT PERIOD. THE ACTION SHALL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UPON THE COURT'S OWN INITIATIVE WITH NOTICE TO SUCH PARTY OR UPON MOTION." IF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT(S) IS NOT PERFECTED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, THIS CASE MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 4(E). NOTICE ISSUED
- SUMS COMPLAINT(55964713) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: MARIO WELLS 3345 EUCLID HEIGHTS BLVD CLEVELAND, OH 44118
- SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
- WRIT FEE
- JUDGE EMILY HAGAN ASSIGNED (RANDOM); COMMERCIAL DOCKET CASE, REASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOHN J RUSSO (RANDOM)
- JUDGE EMILY HAGAN ASSIGNED (RANDOM)
- LEGAL RESEARCH
- LEGAL NEWS
- LEGAL AID
- COURT SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
- COMPUTER FEE
- CLERK'S FEE
- DEPOSIT AMOUNT PAID NEIL C. SANDER
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.
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
