[Cite as Crown Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Gaynor , 2022
- Ohio
- 1468.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs. ALAN GAYNOR , Defendant

- Appell ant

. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C

- 210157 TRIAL NO. 20 CV

- 08994

O P I N I O N.

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 4, 2022

Levy & Associates, LLC , Sean M. Winters and Matthew S. Salyer , for Plaintiff

Appell ee, Alan Gaynor , pro se .OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2 B OCK , Judge. 

### {¶1} Defendant

- appellant Alan Gaynor appeals the trial court’ s entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff

- appellee Crown Assets Management, LLC , (“Crown”)

. Facts and Procedure 

### {¶2} In October 2016, Gaynor obtained a personal loan from WebBa nk, via
Pro sper Funding, LLC, (“Prosper”) , an online credit platform

. In July 2018, WebBank assigned the loan to Prosper , which then assigned the loan to Crown. 

### {¶3} Gaynor had made payments from October 2015 through January 2018, but he then defaulted. In May 2020, Crown sued Gaynor, seeking $2,933.98 . Gaynor’s loan documents were attached to the complaint. Crown redacted account information from the attached promissory note. 

### {¶4} Gaynor filed a letter to Crown as his answer , attaching a nother letter that discussed Crown’s proposed settlement. He did not deny that he had borrowed the money and defaulted, n or did he assert any defenses

. Gaynor later filed a letter requesting an out

- of

- court settlement. 

### {¶5} Gaynor filed another letter (“dispositive motion”) and attached a proposed entry, Crown’s proposed settlement , Gaynor’s response to the proposal, and an affidavit of income

. Gaynor also filed his answers to Crown’s fi rst set of discovery requests, in which he admitted that he had borrowed $9,600 from Prosper and that
h e had failed to continue to make payments

. 

### {¶6} Crown moved for summary judgment and to continue the trial date, citing its witness’ s concern of contracting COVID

- 19 while traveling to Ohio. Gaynor objected to Crow n’s motion to continue , arguing that the reaso n for Crown’sOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3 continuance was disingenuous. The trial court noted Gaynor’s objection and granted Crown’s request for the continuance. 

### {¶7} Gaynor filed an “Affidavit for Trial , ” which contained arguments and conclusions rather than sworn facts. 

### {¶8} In December 20 20, the magistrate granted Crown’s motion for summary judgment. Gaynor did not object to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court adopted the decision granting Crown’s motion, ordering Gaynor to pay $2,933.98 plus court costs. A final appealable order wa s mailed to the parties. Assignment s of Error 

### {¶9} Gaynor argues that the trial court erred by: (1) accepting a redacted complaint , (2) failing to rule on his dispositive motion, (3) failing to require Crown to respond to discovery requests, (4) improperly gra nting Crown’s request for a continuance, (5) failing to recognize the affidavit for trial as a “legitimate motion to deny summ ary judgment, ” and (6) “failure to object to summary judgment within 14 days.” 1 Analysis Civ.R. 53(D) 

### {¶10} Gaynor failed to object to t he magistrate’s decision. His sixth assignment of error asserts that he could not find the magistrate’s decision and does not remember receiving the trial court’s adoption of that decision. 

### {¶11} The magistrate’s decision states that a copy was mailed to Gaynor on December 28, 2020

— the date it was rendered

. Th e record reflects that an entry adopting that decision was mailed on January 11, 2021. A copy of that entry was

1 Gaynor’s assignments of error skip numbers. We renumber them in the order argued in his brief.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4 attached to Gaynor’s appellate brief

. 

### {¶12} Because the record shows that the court sent Gaynor copie s of the magistrate’s decision and judgment, we overrule Gaynor’s sixth assignment of error. Gaynor waived all error 

### {¶13} Under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i), a party has 14 days from the filing of a magistrate’s decision to object to it. In re: $593 United States Curr ency Seized from
Moore , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C

- 160601, 2017

- Ohio

- 7330, ¶ 10. When a party fails to object to a magistrate’s decision, the appellate court generally reviews any assignments of error under a plain

- error standard. Id .; Hudson v. Lager & Vine Gastro Pub & Wine
Bar , 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0085

- M, 2018

- Ohio

- 2802, ¶ 17. But Gaynor has failed to advance a plain

- error argument on appeal. This court will not advance a plain

- error argument on Gaynor’s behalf. Hudson at ¶ 17, quoting State v. White , 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 23955 and 23959, 2008

- Ohio

- 2432, ¶ 33. 

### {¶14} Moreover, under Civ.R. 8(B), a party must state defenses to each claim asserted, and admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies. As Gaynor neither denied Crown’s allegation s nor asserted any defenses, under Civ.R. 8(D), Gaynor effectively admitted to each of Crown’s assertions in its complaint because he did not deny them in his answer. 

### {¶15} Gaynor has waived all issues on appeal based on both Civ.R 8(D) and Civ.R. 53(D). Gaynor ’s remaining assignments of error are overruled.

Crown was entitled to Summary Judgment 

### {¶16} E ven if we considered Gaynor’s appeal on the merits, the result would not change because Crown was entitled to summary judgment. 

### {¶17} Gaynor argues that the trial court er roneously permitted Crown to file aOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5 redacted complaint and failed to require Crown to respond to his discovery requests seeking the redacted information. But Sup.R. 45(D) provides that a party filing a case document must omit personal identifiers, which in cludes loan numbers. See Unifund CCR, LLC v. Barden , 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19 CAE 05 0036, 2020
- Ohio

- 215, ¶ 19; In
re Z.H. , 2013
- Ohio

- 3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.) . Certain proprietary or confidential information is also subject to redaction. See Allied Debt Collection of
V irgini a, LLC v. Nautica Entertainment , LLC , 2019
- O hio

- 4055, 146 N.E.3d 1222, ¶ 38

- 40 (8th Dist.) ; Lambda Research v. Jacobs , 170 Ohio App.3d 750, 2007
- Ohio

- 309, 869 N.E.2d 39, ¶ 14

- 15 (1st Dist.)

. And Gaynor never moved to compe l the redacted information. See Delguidice v. Randall Park Mall , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 60625, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 2844 (June 4, 1992) (t he court will not intervene in discovery matters until the party seeking discovery moves under Civ.R. 37 to compel

. ). Id

. 

### {¶18} Gaynor asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to rule on his dispositive motion . But what he filed was not a dispositive motion. Instead, the document essentially requested that the trial court order Crown to accept one of two proposed settlem ents. A trial court cannot, however, force parties into settlement. See Ross v. Belden Park Co ., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2000CA00086, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1862, *8 (Apr. 16, 2001). 

### {¶19} Gaynor argues that the trial court improperly granted C rown’s motion for a cont inuance. But whether to grant a continuance is within a trial court’s discretion and it will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hillis , 162 Ohio App.3d 280, 2005

- Ohio

- 3591, 833 N.E.2d 344, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.) . The trial court should c onsider (1) the length of the requested delay, (2) whether other continuances have been granted, (3) the inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, opposing counsel,OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6 and court, (4) whether the requested delay is for legitimate rea sons or whether it is dila tory , (5) whether the defendant contributed to the circumstance that gives rise to the request for a continuance, and (6) other relevant factors. Id . at ¶ 10. Gaynor failed

to explain how he would be prejudiced by the continuance. Moreover, t he Hamilton
Co unty Court of Common Pleas and the Hamilton County Municipal Court had issued joint administrative orders in September and October 2020 , which, respectively, had limited in

- person appearances and suspended jury trials due to the COVID

- 19 pandemic. Also, no prior continuances had been requested. T he trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion. Gaynor’s fourth assignment of error is overruled. 

### {¶20} Finally, Gaynor asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to consider his “Affidavit for Tr ial.” But the affidavit, rather than being a sworn statement of facts, largely makes assertions and conclusions. Conclusion 

### {¶21} Gaynor effectively admitted to all of Crown’s allegations when he failed to deny them in his answer. He waived all issues for appea l by failing to object to the magistrate’s decision. Even if he had not waived the issues on appeal , none of Gaynor’s assignments of error have merit. We the refore affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed

. Z AYAS , P.J., and W INKLER , J., concur. Please note: The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion

.