cannon 7
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ?is 

 

MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO 21115 AUG 31 2? 18
MED EXPRESS, INC. CASE NO.: 1301v0351 0mm B?ifgoswom
13CIV0352 MEDINA COUNTY
Plaintiff, or COURTS
JUDGE COLLIER
vs. 
MAGISTRATE LEAVER
AMYNICHOLS, et a1. 

Defendants. DECISION WITH
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

This matter came on for oral evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2015 on the Defendants?
motion for an award of sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51 and Civil Rule 11. A representative of
the Plaintiff, Richard Radey, was present with Attorney Richard Cardenas. Attorneys Levy, Nye
and Haren appeared for the Defendants. Following the presentation of evidence and testimony,
the Court requested the parties submit post-trial closing arguments with proposed ?ndings of
facts and conclusions of law. On July 1, 2015, the Defendants submitted their briefs as well as
proposed ?nding of facts and conclusions of law. On July 6, 2015, counsel for the Plaintiff ?led
a motion to withdraw from the representation of the Plaintiff citing irreconcilable differences
with the client. The Court granted counsel?s motion to withdraw on July 9, 2015. No new
counsel has appeared for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is presently unrepresented. The Plaintiff did
not submit any post-trial briefs. The Magistrate hereby issues the following Magistrate?s
Decision:

MOTIONS AND EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
Defendants? Exhibits are admitted by stipulation of the parties.
Defendants? Exhibits are admitted Without objection.

Defendants? Exhibits 12are admitted over the objections of the
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff?s Exhibits 1 through 6 are admitted by stipulation of the parties.
Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Magistrate ?nds as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, Med Express, Inc. commenced suit against Defendant
Amy Nichols and EBay, Inc. The veri?ed complaint was as follows:
Plaintiff Med Express Inc., for its Veri?ed Complaint against Defendants Amy
Nicholls and Ebay, Inc. states as follows:

1. Med Express Inc. (?Med Express") is an Ohio corporation which is and
has at all times material to this Complaint been doing business in Medina
County, Ohio.
2. Defendant Amy Nicholls (?Nicholls?) is, upon information and belief,
an individual who resides in Greenville, South Carolina, who transacted
business with Med Express in Medina County, Ohio. Her Ebay username
is chimera?studios.
3. Defendant Ebay, Inc. (?Ebay?) is, upon information and belief, a
Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the State of Ohio as a
foreign corporation, and doing business in Medina County, Ohio.
4. Med Express is engaged in the business of selling used medical
equipment that has been repaired, refurbished and rebuilt on Ebay.com, a

website that is owned, operated and maintained by Ebay.

5. On or about February 12, 2013, Nicholls purchased an Olympus
Microscope Light Source with Shutter Attachment ?-om Med
Express in Ebay transaction No. 230849885366. As part of the transaction,
Nicholls agreed to pay shipping costs in the amount of $12.00 in addition
to the purchase price of the item, which was $175.00.

6. On February 12, 2013, Nicholls paid for the item and shipping via Pay
Pal. after receiving Nicholls? payment, Med Express took the
equipment to the Valley City post of?ce, where it was weighed and
shipped to Nicholls. Med Express paid the full amount of the shipping
cost, but for some reason unknown to Med Express, the equipment was
received by Nicholls with $1.44 postage due.

7. When noti?ed of the problem, Med Express immediately offered to
reimburse Nicholls for the postage due amount. Despite this offer, and
before giving Med Express a chance to reimburse her, Nicholls on
February 26, 2013, apparently as a result of the $1.44 postage due, posted
negative feedback and comments for the transaction on Ebay?s website
and gave Med Express low ratings in the Detailed Seller Ratings section of
Ebay?s Feedback Forum, resulting in an unfavorable feedback pro?le for
Med Express. In so doing, Nicholls falsely and deliberately slandered the
good name and reputation of Med Express.

8. Nicholls, by posting the negative feedback and comments and low
dealer ratings on Ebay?s website, has caused Med Express to incur

damages including, but 'not limited to, the loss of income and revenue

which has irreparany harmed Med Express and caused Med Express to
lose customers and income, and to incur additional charges from Ebay, for
which it may recover damages ?om Nicholls.
WHERERFORE, Plaintiff Med Express Inc. demands judgment against
Defendants Amy Nicholls and Ebay, Inc. as follows:
1. For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring
Nicholle and Ebay to remove the negative feedback, comments and review
from Ebay?s website;
2. For damages against Nicholls in the amount to be determined at trial
necessary to compensate Med for the losses it has and will suffer
as a result of Nicholls? conduct;
3. Because Nicholls? conduct was intentional and malicious, for an award
of reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages; and
4. For the Plaintiff?s costs and expenses herein and for such other and
further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate.
2. The complaint also contained a notarized Veri?cation signed by Richard A. Radey, the
President of Plainti? Med Express, Inc.
3. The Plaintiff also ?led a motion for a temporary restraining order with the complaint.
The motion also contained the af?davit of Richard A. Radey.
4. Mr. Radey?s af?davit attached to the motion for a temporary restraining order, states, in
relevant part:
Due to a dispute over $1.44 in excess postage charges, and rather than accepting my

full offer for a full reimbursement of the postage due cost, Defendant Amy Nichols

falsely posted false and slanderous statements on the website owned by Ebay, Inc., in
the form of negative feedback on the transaction and low ratings in Ebay?s Detailed
Seller Ratings section.
As a result of the false and libelous statement, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will
continue to suffer damages into the ?sture unless said comments, posts, feedback and
ratings are removed from the website owned, operated and maintained by Defendant
Ebay, Inc.
5. On the same day, Med Express initiated a second lawsuit against Defendants Dennis Rogan
and Ebay, Inc. The second veri?ed complaint was as follows:
Plaintiff Med Express Inc., for its Veri?ed Complaint against Defendants
Dennis Regan and Ebay, Inc. states as follows:
1. Med Express Inc. (?Med Express?) is an Ohio corporation which is and
has at all times material to this Complaint been doing business in Medina
County, Ohio.
2. Defendant Dennis Regan (?Re gan?) is, upon information and belief, an
individual who resides in West Pittson, who transacted
business with Med Express in Medina County, Ohio. Rogan?s Ebay
username is rogiedog646.
3. Defendant Ebay, Inc. (?Ebay?) is, upon information and belief, a,
Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the State of Ohio as a

foreign corporation, and doing business in Medina County, Ohio.

4. Med Express is engaged in the business of selling used medical
equipment that has been repaired, refurbished and rebuilt on Ebaycom, a
website that is owned, operated and maintained by Ebay.

5. On or about December 8, 2012, Regan purchased a Pyrex 10 ml.
Graduated Cylinder No. 3046-10 Double Pack from Med Express in Ebay
transaction No. 330660664519.

6. After Regan sent payment for the item, one of the two cylinders was
inadvertently broken during handling.

7. Despite Med Express furnishing Regan with a full refund, Regan on
January 24, 2013, posted neutral feedback and negative comments on
Ebay?s website, and low dealer ratings in Ebay?s Seller Ratings section. In
so doing, Regan has falsely and deliberately slandered the good name and
reputation of Med Express.

8. Regan, by posting the neutral feedback and comments and the low
dealer ratings, has caused Med Express to incur damages including, but
not limited to, the loss of income and revenue which has irreparany
harmed Med Express and caused Med Express to lose customers and
income, and to incur additional charges from Ebay, for which it may
recover damages from Regan.

WHERERFORE, Plaintiff Med Express Inc. demands judgment against

Defendants Dennis Regan and Ebay, Inc. as follows:

1. For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Rogan
and Ebay to remove the negative feedback, comments and review from Ebay?s
website;
2. For damages against Rogan in the amount to be determined at trial
necessary to compensate Med Express for Rogan?s conduct;
3. Because Rogan?s conduct was intentional and malicious, for an award of
reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages; and
4. For the Plaintiff?s costs and expenses herein and for such other and further
relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate.
6. The complaint also contained a notarized Veri?cation signed by Richard A. Radey, the
President of Plaintiff Med Express, Inc.
7. Again, the Plaintiff also ?led a motion for a temporary restraining order with the
complaint. The motion again contained the af?davit of Richard A. Radey.
8. Mr. Radey?s af?davit attached to the motion for a temporary restraining order, states,
in relevant part:
Despite receiving a prompt and ?tll refund on the transaction, Defendant Dennis
Regan falsely posted false and slanderous statements on the website owned by
Ebay, Inc., in the form of neutral feedback, negative comments and low dealer

ratings in Ebay?s Detailed Seller Ratings section.

As a result of the false and libelous statement, Plaintiff has suffered damages and

will continue to suffer damages into the future unless said comments, posts,

feedback and ratings are removed from the website owned, operated and
maintained by Defendant Ebay, Inc.

9. On March 28, 2013, the Court denied the motions for a temporary restraining order in
both cases.

10. On April 18, 2013, the complaints in both cases were voluntarily dismissed.

11. On April 18, 2013, Attorneys Nye and Haren entered appearances for both
Defendants. Unaware the complaints had been voluntarily dismissed, answers and counterclaims
were filed on behalf of both Defendants. Ebay never ?led an answer in either case.

12. On April 22, 2013, the Defendants? ?led a motion to consolidate the cases.

13. On May 20, 2013, the Defendants ?led a motion for an award of sanctions pursuant
to RC 2323.51 and Civil Rule 11. The Defendants sought an award of legal fees and expenses
in the amount 

14. On May 28, 2013, Attorney Paul Levy of Washington, DC. sought admission pro
hac vice on behalf of the Defendants.

15. On May 29, 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases.

16. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff ?led a reply to the counterclaim.

17. On May 29, 2013, the Court granted the motion of Attorney Levy to appear pro hac
vice.

18. On July 15, 2013, the Court issued an order vacating the previous consolidation of the
cases. The Court also found no counterelaims were pending as the counterclaims were ?led after
the cases were voluntarily dismissed. The two pending motions for sanctions were scheduled for

oral hearing on September 26, 2013.

19. The sanctions hearing was subsequently re-scheduled to November 14, 2013.

20. On November 7, 2013, Attorney Bruce Hall entered an appearance on behalf of the

Plaintiff and requested the hearing scheduled for November 14, 2013 be continued.
21. The hearing was re?scheduled to January 23, 2014.

22. The matter proceeded to hearing before Judge Collier on January 23, 2014.

23. The Defendants? testimony was submitted by affidavit. The Defendants also offered
the expert testimony of Attorney Karen Lefton. Ms. Lefton testi?ed as an expert regarding the
amount of time and labor required to defend defamation/First Amendment cases. Ms. Lefton
opined the attorney fees requested were reasonable and necessary. Richard Radey, the sole
shareholder and President of Plaintiff Med Express, Inc. (hereafter Med Express) testi?ed on
behalf of the Plaintiff. Med Eirpress sells 95% of its product through Ebay. After each sale, a
purchaser has the option of leaving feedback regarding the transaction.

24. A purchaser can rate a transaction as positive, neutral or negative. Secondly, the
purchaser has the option to leave a comment about their experience. Lastly, the purchaser can
rate the transaction by leaving feedback ratings in four separate categories. These detailed seller
ratings allow a purchaser to rate the categories from 1 (worst) to 5 (best).

25. Mr. Rady testi?ed Med Express was rated a ?Top Rated Seller Plus? by Ebay. As a
result, Med Express pays lower fees to Ebay. Low ratings in Ebay?s detailed seller ratings
categories can cause Ebay to change a seller?s status, consequently costing a seller more to do
business through Ebay.

26. Mr. Rady testi?ed he was sitting at his computer when he became aware through his
Ebay seller?s dashboard that Defendant Nicholls left a comment as well as a negative rating
regarding a purchase she made from Med EXpress. The comment said ?something to the nature

of: Package arrived with postage due with no previous communication from seller?. T. 143.

27. Mr. Rady then testi?ed: ?At that moment 1?s appeared, the lowest rating possible on
all of ray?all of those categories.?

28. Counsel ?thher prompted Mr. Rady by asking, So as you sit here today, you
remember those ratings were from Ms. that right??

29. Mr. Rady testi?ed ?Yes?, and again stated all the categories were rated 1?s.

30. Mr. Rady then testi?ed in detail as to why the rating of by Defendant Nicholls in all
four categories was inaccurate.

31. Mr. Rady then testi?ed about the transaction with Defendant Regan. After Defendant
Regan ordered and paid for a beaker, the beaker was discovered to have been broken.
Consequently, Med Express could not complete the sale and refunded Defendant Rogan?s
payment.

32. Mr. Rady testi?ed Defendant Regan left neutral feedback regarding the transaction
with Ebay. Mr. Rady also testi?ed ?He left me all 1?s? on the detailed seller rating categories.

33. Attorney Hall concluded his direct examination of Mr. Rady by asking ?So if I
understand your testimony, you? re saying that what both of them marked was factually
inaccurate; is that correct?? Mr. Rady responded ?Yes.?

34. Following the hearing, on February 4, 2014, the Defendants ?led a ?motion to reopen
the record in connection with motion for an award of sanctions.?

35. The Defendants asserted the testimony of Mr. Rady was false. Speci?cally, neither of
the Defendants rated Med Express with all 1?s as Rady testi?ed, and more importantly, Mr. Rady

could not have even seen the detailed seller ratings as they are not available to be viewed by a

seller.

36. On November 7, 2014, Counsel for the Defendants took the deposition of Rebekah
Long, an Ebay representative, in Draper, Utah. Ms. Longs? testimony revealed that Mr. Rady?s
prior testimony regarding seeing the Defendants rate him with all 1?s on Ebay?s detailed seller
rating page was false. She testi?ed detailed seller ratings are anonymous and the seller cannot
view the ratings. Furthermore, the ratings le? by Defendants Regan and Nicholls were not all
1?s. Ebay?s records indicate Defendant Nicholls detailed seller ratings were as follows:

5, 1, (unreadable), and 3.

37. The deposition of Ms. Long shows that Mr. Rady?s testimony was false.

38. Before the Court rendered a decision on the Defendants? motion for sanctions, the
parties reached an agreement. The agreement was placed on the record on March 27, 2014.

39. On May 14, 2014, Attorney Hall ?led a motion to withdraw from representation of
the Plaintiff. The motion was granted.

40. On May 20, 2014, the Defendants ?led a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

41. On May 22, 2014, Attorney Kevin Susman ?led a notice of appearance on behalf of
the Plaintiff. Then on November 10, 2014 Attorney Ricardo Cardenas entered his appearance on
behalf of the Plaintiff.

42. The motion to enforce the settlement agreement came on for hearing before the
undersigned Magistrate on November 20, 2014. The Plaintiff was represented by Attorney
Cardenas at the hearing.

43. On December 3, 2014, the undersigned Magistrate issued a Decision ?nding there
Was no enforceable agreement between the parties. The Defendants? motion to enforce the

settlement agreement was denied. No objections were ?led and the Court adopted the

Magistrate?s Decision on December 19, 2014. The Defendants? original motion for sanctions was
rescheduled for oral evidentiary hearing on April 2, 2015.

44. The matter proceeded to oral evidentiary hearing before the undersigned Magistrate.
on April 2, 2015 as scheduled. Much of the same evidence and testimony presented mirrored the
?rst hearing before Judge Collier. Ms. Le?on again testi?ed as an expert regarding the amount
of time and labor required to defend defamationJ'First Amendment cases. Ms. Lefton again
opined the attorney fees requested were reasonable and necessary. Attorneys Levy, Nye and
Haren testi?ed as to their efforts in the case. The deposition of an Ebay representative was also
presented.

45.  Radey also testi?ed again. His testimony varied from the ?rst hearing in that he
attempted to clarify his prior trial testimony wherein he testi?ed he saw the Defendants Nicholls
and Regan rated him with all 1?s in the detailed seller ratings categories. This time he testi?ed he
must have jumped to the conclusion Nicholls and Regan rated him with all 1?s (as opposed to his
prior testimony that he basically watched it happen almost live). Mr. Rady also testi?ed he
called Ebay years ago and Ebay gave him the idea to ?le suit against Ebay and buyers leaving
negative feedback. The negative feedback could be removed by court order. The testimony
wasn?t credible.

46. Following the hearing, the parties were to submit written closings arguments with
pmposed ?ndings of fact and conclusions of law. The Defendants timely complied.

47. On June 17, 2015, the Defendants withdrew their motion for sanctions as to Attorney

James Amodio only.

48. The Plaintiff?s post-trial brief was due on July 31, 2015.

49. On July 6, 2015, Attorney Cardenas ?led a motion to withdraw ?rom representation
of the Plaintiff. The motion was granted.

50. No attorney has since entered a notice of appearance for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is
unrepresented and has not submitted a post-trial brief.

51. The Defendants filed a motion for default award of sanctions based on the Plainti??s
failure to appear through counsel.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The underlying cause of action set forth in the Plaintiff? complaint and motion for
injunctive relief against both Defendants is defamation. The conduct of the Defendants which the
Plaintiff asserted rose to the level of defamation is as follows:

Defendant Nicholls participated in all three components of Ebay?s feedback system. She
rated the transaction with the Plaintiff ?Negative? and then left a comment stating ?Order arrived
with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand.? In the detailed seller rating
component she rated the transaction as follows:

How accurate was the item description? 5

How satis?ed were you with the seller?s communication? 1

How quickly did the seller ship the items? Illegible ?appears to be a 3 or 5
How reasonable were the shipping and handling Charges? 3

Defendant Regan also participated in all three components of Ebay?s feedback system.
He rated the transaction ?Neutral? and then left a comment stating ?Order retracted.? 1n the
detailed seller rating component be rated the transaction as follows:

How accurate was the item description Not rated

How satis?ed were you with the seller?s communication? Not rated

How quickly did the seller ship the items? Not rated
How reasonable were the shipping and handling charges? 5

2. The tort of defamation is a false publication that injures a person?s reputation. To
prevail, a plaintiff must prove all of the following ?ve elements: 1) a false and defamatory
statement; (2) about the plaintiff; (3) published Without privilege to a third party; (4) with fault of
at least negligence on the part of the defendant; and (5) that was either defamatory per-se or
caused special harm to the plaintiff.

3. Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides in relevant part: Every citizen
may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the
abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of
the press.

4. Opinion speech is protected speech that is never actionable as defamation. When
determining whether a statement is fact or opinion, a court is to consider the speci?c language
used, whether the statement is veri?able, the general context of the statement, and the context in
which the statement appeared. An objective ?ordinary reader? test is to be applied to determine
whether a statement is a false statement of fact. The court must determine whether a reasonable
reader would view the words to be language that normally conveys information of a factual
nature or opinion. If the language is factual in nature, a truth?il Statement cannot be defamation
because an element of defamation is a false defamatory statement.

5. The feedback generated by Nicholls and Regan is part opinion and part statement of
fact. Clearly, rating your satisfaction with either a negative, neutral or positive ranking would not

be perceived by any rational reader to be anything but the buyer?s Opinion. The statement is not

veri?able and appears in a forum speci?cally designed to publish the buyers? opinions of the
transaction. The same analysis applies to the detailed seller ratings.

6. An argument could be made the narrative statements le? by Defendants Nicholls and
Regan were intended to be statement of facts even though they appear in a forum designed to
elicit opinions. Nevertheless, these statements could not have been the basis of a defamation
action because the statements are undeniably true and  Rady had no objective reason
whatsoever to question their veracity when be caused the complaints to be ?led.

7. The Plaintiff?s complaints had no merit, legally or factually, when they were ?led.

8. RC de?nes frivolous conduct, in relevant part, as follows:

Conduct of an inmate or other party to a civil action, of an inmate who has filed an

appeal of the type described in division of this section, or of the inmate?s or

other party?s counsel of record that satis?es any of the following:

It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the
civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to,
causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(ii) It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith
argument for an extension, modi?cation, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be
supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.

The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no
evidentiary support or, if speci?cally so identi?ed, are not likely to have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(iv)The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted
by the evidence or, if speci?cally so identi?ed, are not reasonably based on a lack of
information or belief.

9. A violation of any one of the above sections is frivolous conduct. The Plaintiff has
violated all four sections.

10. The Plainti??s suit was for an improper purpose. The goal was to thwart Ebay?s seller
ranking system for ?nancial gain by obtaining an injunction against out of state defendants,
unlikely to be able to defend themselves. The Defendants did absolutely nothing wrong. They
simply participated in Ebay?s feedback component in exactly the manner in which Ebay
intended. While Mr. Rady may perceive Ebay?s seller ranking system to be unfair to sellers, the
remedy wasn?t to attack the buyers.

11. The Plaintiff complaint was not warranted under existing law, could not have been
supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modi?cation, or reversal of existing law,
and could not be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law. The
Defendants did nothing more than accurately recite a statement of facts and express their
opinion. Mr. Rady had absolutely no knowledge or evidence to the contrary.

12. The Plaintist conduct consisted of allegations or other factual contentions that had
no evidentiary support or, if speci?cally so identi?ed, were not likely to have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Again, Mr. Rady had no
objective evidence suggesting the statements of fact made by the Defendants were not true.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff misrepresented the matter in the pleadings and to the court.

13. The Magistrate ?nds the Plainti??s complaints and motions set forth factual

contentions that the Plaintiff knew or should have known were not warranted by the evidence.

14. R.C. 2323.51 allows a party adversely a?ected by frivolous conduct to recover an
award of court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in

connection with the civil action.

15. The Defendants have moved the Court for an award of reasonable attorney fees and
expenses. The Magistrate ?nds the Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees and

expenses pursuant to RC. 2323.51.

16. Counsel for the Defendants have requested an award of attorney fees in the amount of

$32,405.39 and expenses of $2,804.00.

17. Attorney Haren?s fees are $17,248.39 at an hourly rate of $175.00 per hour. Attorney

Nye?s fees are $15,157.00 at an hourly rate of $230.00. That breaks down to a total of 164.46

hours spent on this case.

18. Attorney Levy, a nationally recognized First Amendment litigator from the public
interest ?rm Public Citizen Litigation Group located in Washington, DC, participated completely

pro-bono and is not seeking any award of fees.

19. Rule 1.5 (A) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth the factors to be
considered when determining the reasonableness of an attorney fee request. The factors are:

1. the time and labor required, the novelty and dif?culty of the questions involved, and
the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

2. the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

3. the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

4. the amount involved and the results obtained;

5. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

6. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

7. the experience, reputation, and the ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services; and

8. whether the fee is ?xed or contingent.

20. The Defendants argue they were able to minimize the amount of time they spent on
this litigation because of the pro bono assistance of Attorney Levy. The Magistrate found
Attorney Levy to be an experienced, skilled and competent litigator. Attorney Levy could have
easily handled this matter himself. The Court recognizes Attorney Levy was required to associate
himself with an Ohio lawyer to be admitted pro hac vice. But the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved did not require three lawyers to obtain the result in this case.

21. The Magistrate has conducted many attorney fee hearings and is familiar with fees
customarily charged in Medina County for similar legal services. A reasonable rate for a skilled
litigator in Medina County is $200.00 per hour.

22. The Magistrate ?nds the Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees in the
amount of $16,446.00 (total hours of 164.46 V: $200.00) plus expenses of $2,804.00, for a
total award of $19,250.00 against Med Express, Inc.

23. Having awarded fees pursuant to R.C. 2323.51, it is unnecessary to address sanctions
pursuant to Civil Rule 11.

24. The Plaintiff participated throughout the entire hearing. Failing to submit a brief and
presently being unrepresented (and therefore unable to appear without counsel) is not the
equivalent of failing to plead or defend. The Defendants? motion for a default award of sanctions
is denied.

252. Court costs shall be assessed to the Plaintiff.

  

. LEAVER

 
 

No party shall assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual ?nding or legal
conclusion, whether or not speci?cally designated as a ?nding of fact or conclusion of law under
Civ. R. unless the party timely and speci?cally objects to that factual ?nding or
legal conclusion as required by Civ. R. 

The Clerk of Courts is instructed to serve this Decision on the below listed attorneys or parties:

Med Express, Inc.
Atty. Amodio
Atty. Haren

Atty. Levy

Atty. Nye

Copies of this Order were mailed by the Clerk of Courts on 5?

ohm? ?gwma/L
Deputy Cle of Court