Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
AMMAR AL HASHASH, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
FOOD MART PLUS, INC. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Appeal from the Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. CVG
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Richard H. Drucker
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Barry Goloboff
BEFORE: Boyle, J., Keough, A.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
J. BOYLE, J.
Defendant-appellant, Food Mart Plus, Inc. ("Food
Mart"), appeals from the judgment of the Garfield
Heights Municipal Court that granted a writ of restitution to
plaintiffs-appellees, Ammar and Touria Al Hashash (the
"Hashashes"), and denied Food Mart's motion for
temporary restraining order and request for declaratory
judgment. After reviewing the underlying proceedings and the
law, we find no merit to the appeal and affirm the trial
Factual Background and Procedural History
On February 8, 2016, the Hashashes filed a complaint against
Food Mart for forcible entry and detainer of the premises
located at 16477 Broadway Avenue, Maple Heights, Ohio (the
"Premises") and money damages for breach of a
commercial lease (the "Lease").
On February 29, 2016, a magistrate held a hearing on the
first cause for forcible entry and detainer and ordered a
writ of restitution of the Premises in favor of the
Hashashes, with a move-out date of March 11, 2016.
On March 8, 2016, Food Mart filed objections to the
magistrate's decision. Food Mart argued that the
Hashashes failed to provide proper service of its notices. It
also argued that equity demanded a continued relationship
between the parties under a new lease that Food Mart signed
after it received the notice to vacate the Premises.
After a hearing, the trial court granted Food Mart's
Subsequently, Food Mart and the Hashashes entered into a
written settlement agreement. At a hearing on March 22, 2016,
the trial court set forth the terms of the settlement
agreement on the record with the parties present.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Food Mart agreed to
make certain payments to the Hashashes and agreed to vacate
the Premises on or before May 22, 2016. If these conditions
were met, the Hashashes agreed to dismiss the case, retain
the security deposit, and waive any known claims for monies
owed other than the amount set forth in the settlement
agreement. If Food Mart failed to timely deposit all monies
when due or failed to vacate the Premises by May 22, 2016,
then the Hashashes agreed to notify the trial court in
writing of the default so that the court "shall issue a
writ of restitution for the premises[.]"
On May 16, 2016, Food Mart filed its motion for temporary
restraining order pursuant to Civ.R. 65(A) and request for
declaratory judgment ("motion for temporary restraining
order"). Food Mart argued that, pursuant to the Lease
(which had expired), it had the right to sell its business
and sublet or assign the Lease prior to the agreed upon
move-out date of May 22, 2016. Food Mart contended that the
Hashashes were interfering with this claimed right by
refusing to allow a potential buyer to sublet or accept
assignment of the Lease. On May 20, 2016, the Hashashes filed
a motion to strike the motion for temporary restraining
order, a motion for enforcement of the agreed settlement, and
a motion for sanctions.
On May 23, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the
following: (1) Food Mart's motion for a temporary
restraining order, (2) Hashashes' motion to strike, (3)
the settlement agreement between the parties regarding the
issuance of a writ of ...