Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
APPELLANT Mary Kinasz, pro se
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Blake A. Dickson The Dickson Firm,
BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Jones, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE.
Plaintiff-appellant, Mary Kinasz, individually and as the
executor of the estate of Justyna Kinasz
("appellant"), brings this appeal challenging the
trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants-appellees, Blake Dickson, et al.
("Dickson"), regarding appellant's claim for
legal malpractice. Specifically, appellant argues that
genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded the
granting of summary judgment. After a thorough review of the
record and law, this court affirms.
Factual and Procedural History
The instant matter arose from a dispute between appellant and
Dickson regarding Dickson's representation in Cuyahoga
C.P. No. CV-11-766580, a nursing home negligence case. The
negligence case settled in January 2013.
In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-15-850029, appellant filed a
complaint for legal malpractice against Dickson on August 20,
2015. On February 4, 2016, appellant filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). The trial
court dismissed the case without prejudice on February 5,
Appellant refiled her legal malpractice claim against Dickson
on February 3, 2017. Appellant requested $25, 000 in
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and
On April 7, 2017, Dickson filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that appellant's claim was barred by
the one-year statute of limitations and that she failed to
establish damages. Appellant filed a brief in opposition to
Dickson's summary judgment motion on June 7, 2017.
On July 10, 2017, the trial court granted Dickson's
motion for summary judgment. The trial court's judgment
entry provides, in relevant part, "construing all facts
in favor of [appellant] and finding no genuine issue of
material fact remains, the court hereby grants
[Dickson's] motion for summary judgment."
It is from this judgment that appellant filed the instant
appeal on July 28, 2017. She assigns one error for review:
I. The trial court erred in granting [Dickson's] motion
for summary judgment finding that there are no genuine issues
of material fact.
Law and Analysis
Standard of Review
Summary judgment, governed by Civ.R. 56, provides for the
expedited adjudication of matters where there is no material
fact in dispute to be determined at trial. In order to obtain
summary judgment, the moving party must show that "(1)
there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it
appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to
but one conclusion when viewing evidence in favor of the
nonmoving party, and that conclusion is adverse to the
nonmoving party." Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.,
77 Ohio ...