from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
& Meizlish, Co., LPA, and Keith Golden, for appellant.
Reminger Co., LPA, and Matthew L. Schrader, for appellees.
Matthew L. Schrader.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Larry Katz, appeals from a
judgment by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court denying
his motion for leave to respond to appellees'
counterclaim, granting appellees' motion for default
judgment on the counterclaim, and overruling his objections
to a magistrate's decision awarding damages on the
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} Appellant filed, pro se, a legal malpractice
claim against appellees related to appellees'
representation of appellant in a divorce case and two related
3} On April 27, 2015, appellees filed an answer to
the complaint. They also filed a counterclaim for unpaid
legal fees related to that representation. Appellant did not
file an answer to the counterclaim within the time period
prescribed by rule.
4} On July 10, 2015, appellees filed a motion for
default judgment on their counterclaim. They also filed
contemporaneously a motion for summary judgment on
appellant's claims against them.
5} On July 27, 2015, appellant filed a "Motion
to File out of Rule" and represented that it was "a
response to the Defendant." To support his motion,
appellant stated that there were genuine issues of material
fact to overcome the motion for summary judgment. Appellant
did not specifically mention the motion for default judgment.
6} On July 27, 2015, appellant filed a
"Memorandum Contra [Appellees'] Motion for
Judgment." In that filing, appellant argued that he has
valid defenses to appellees' counterclaim for attorney
fees. He requested that the court overrule appellees'
motion for summary judgment.
7} On July 27, 2015, appellant filed "Motion
for Extension of Time within which to Move or Plead."
Despite its title, the motion's substance was focused on
responses to appellees' discovery requests.
8} On August 3, 2015, appellees requested an
extension of time to file reply briefs in support of their
motions. In their request for an extension of time, appellees
represented that appellant's July 27, 2015 memorandum
contra "seemingly relates to the Motion for Default
9} On October 9, 2015, the trial court granted
appellant's July 27, 2015 motion to file out of rule, and
instructed appellant that he had 14 additional days from the
date of the order to respond to the motion for summary
judgment. The ...