Court Opinion

ID: 9964274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 16:09:11.80511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:16.490487
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Valentine v. Stephen, 2024-Ohio-1631.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                             SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 JEFFERSON COUNTY

                                      THOMAS VALENTINE,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                                  v.

                                        SCOTT STEPHEN,

                                        Defendant-Appellee.

                        OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                         Case No. 23 JE 0022

                                     Civil Appeal from the
                      Steubenville Municipal Court, Jefferson County, Ohio
                                    Case No. 23-CVH-298

                                          BEFORE:
                   Mark A. Hanni, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                              JUDGMENT:
                                               Dismissed.

Thomas Valentine, Pro se, Plaintiff-Appellant and

Scott Stephen, Pro se, Defendant-Appellee.

                                         Dated: April 26, 2024
                                                                                      –2–

HANNI, J.

       {¶1}   Before the Court is an appeal filed by Appellant Thomas Valentine
(Appellant), pro se, on November 29, 2023. For the following reasons, we dismiss the
appeal.
       {¶2}   Appellant initially filed a complaint for defamation against Appellee Scott
Stephen (Appellee) in the small claims division of the Steubenville Municipal Court. He
alleged that Appellee published a negative review on his Amazon Marketplace account
concerning a smartphone Appellee purchased from Appellant’s virtual storefront on
Marketplace. The case was thereafter transferred to the municipal court’s regular civil
docket.
       {¶3}   Appellee filed a pro se letter responding to the complaint and the
Steubenville Municipal Court construed the letter as a motion to dismiss Appellant’s
complaint. Appellee asserted that it was not Appellant who was the real party in interest
in the case, but rather, Appellant’s single-member limited liability company, Genuine
Goods, LLC.
       {¶4}   The municipal court held a hearing on the motion, focusing on the
relationship between Appellant, Genuine Goods, LLC, and CSRi, the website where
Appellee posted the negative review. The court allowed Appellant to testify at the hearing.
       {¶5}   After the hearing, the Steubenville Municipal Court issued a journal entry
dismissing Appellant’s complaint. The court held that the real party in interest was not
Appellant. Instead, the Court held the real party in interest was Genuine Goods, LLC, a
single-member LLC with Appellant as its only member. The court further found that CSRi,
the website where Appellee posted the negative review, was a fictitious name for Genuine
Goods, LLC and not Appellant.
       {¶6}   Appellant, pro se, filed the instant appeal relating to the municipal court’s
journal entry. Appellant is not a licensed attorney authorized to practice law in the State
of Ohio. In response to the filing of the appeal, Appellee, pro se, filed a letter with the
Jefferson County Clerk of Courts on February 9, 2024. Appellee challenged Appellant’s
ability to proceed on the appeal pro se. Appellee asserted that Appellant was engaging

Case No. 23 JE 0022
                                                                                       –3–

in the unauthorized practice of law by representing his limited liability company, Genuine
Goods, LLC and/or CSRi, before this Court.
       {¶7}   We construed Appellee’s correspondence as a request to dismiss the
appeal. We notified both parties via a Magistrate’s Order of this construction and ordered
Appellant to file a response no later than February 29, 2024. We further informed the
parties that briefing in the case would close on the same date.
       {¶8}   Appellant filed a response to the Magistrate’s Order, objecting to our
treatment of Appellee’s letter as a motion to dismiss. Appellant also asserted that he
should be permitted to proceed on appeal pro se because his case was unusual and the
municipal court permitted him to do so.
       {¶9}   We dismiss Appellant’s appeal. R.C. 1925.17 provides that an officer or
salaried employee of a corporation may file an action and present its claim or defense in
small claims court. However, it further provides that the officer or salaried employee may
not “in the absence of representation by an attorney at law, engage in cross-examination,
argument, or other acts of advocacy.” R.C. 1925.17.
       {¶10} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-4107,
832 N.E.2d 1193, ¶ 23-24, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that R.C. 1925.17 created
a narrow exception to the general rule that only licensed attorneys may represent
corporations. The Court acknowledged that R.C. 1925.17 allows officers or salaried
employees of corporations to complete and file preprinted complaint forms in small claims
courts, as long as they do not “cross-examine witnesses, argue, or otherwise act as an
advocate.” Id. at ¶ 24.
       {¶11} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele, 108 Ohio St.3d 283, 2006-Ohio-904, 843
N.E.2d 169, ¶ 18, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “a limited-liability company exists as
a separate legal entity, * * * and may be represented in court only by a licensed attorney.”
       {¶12} In Tera, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, 2023-Ohio-273, 205 N.E.3d 1168, ¶
103 (7th Dist.) we cited to numerous cases concerning the ability of a limited liability
company to sue and be sued. In particular, we quoted two decisions concerning limited
liability members and their abilities to sue. We quoted from Ogle v. Hocking Cty., 4th
Dist. Hocking No. 14CA3, 2014-Ohio-5422, ¶ 25, that “* * * members of a limited liability
company, even if they are the sole members of the company, do not have standing to sue

Case No. 23 JE 0022
                                                                                     –4–

on its behalf.” Id. We also referred to Estep v. Xanterra Kingsmill, L.L.C., E.D. Va. No.
4:16-cv-89, 2017 WL 1103179, *2 (Mar. 20, 2017), which cited to the holding in Matthews
v. HSBC Bank USA, E.D. Va. No. 1:14cv810, 2014 WL 12538173 (July 25, 2014), finding
“ ‘[e]ven if [the sole and managing member of an L.L.C.] has suffered personal damage
as a consequence of any damage to [the L.L.C.], he has no standing to state a claim for
those damages’ in his individual capacity.” (citations omitted).” Id.
       {¶13} Before this Court, Appellant’s response to the request for dismissal argues
that we should not have construed Appellee’s correspondence as a request to dismiss
the appeal because he failed to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant also
presents legal arguments concerning his status to proceed pro se and advocates his legal
status as the party initiating the complaint in municipal court. Just as Appellant may not
advance this appeal pro se on behalf of a limited liability company, he likewise is
prohibited from advancing arguments in response to the request for dismissal pro se on
behalf of a limited liability company.
       {¶14} Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal.

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, P.J., concurs.

Case No. 23 JE 0022
[Cite as Valentine v. Stephen, 2024-Ohio-1631.]

        For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the instant Appeal is
dismissed. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.
        A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.

                                        NOTICE TO COUNSEL

        This document constitutes a final judgment entry.