Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Karabinos

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 24, 2017

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Andrew Karabinos Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County C.P.C. No. 15CV-2843Court of Common Pleas

         On brief:

          Mike DeWine, Attorney General, and Rosemary E. Rupert, for appellee.

         Argued:

          Rosemary E. Rupert.

         On brief:

          E. Darren McNeal Co., LLC, and E. Darren McNeal, for appellant.

         Argued:

          E. Darren McNeal.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Andrew Karabinos, appeals a final judgment entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on February 24, 2017 which adopted a decision from a magistrate of that court. Because we find that Karabinos failed to object to the magistrate's decision and thereby waived all grounds for this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the court of common pleas.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On April 1, 2015, the State of Ohio, through the office of the Ohio Attorney General, brought suit against Karabinos for violations of Ohio's Consumer Protection Act. These violations stemmed from sales of automobiles in which Karabinos allegedly failed to ensure that buyers were able to obtain valid title for the vehicles. In October, Karabinos suggested that the case be stayed as he had filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Following a response from the State arguing that Karabinos' bankruptcy did not and could not preclude the relief sought by the State, the trial court reactivated the case.

         {¶ 3} On March 18, 2016, Karabinos (by later-granted leave) filed an answer. Because the State failed to serve Karabinos' company (which had also been named in the complaint) the suit was never properly commenced against it and the State elected to dismiss. Meanwhile, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.