Opinion
Case No. C-2-02-0251.
May 19, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Doc. 54) filed May 14, 2008. Defendants' counsel contacted the Court regarding this most recent Motion to determine if a response is necessary. The Court has reviewed the Motion and instructed Defendants' counsel that no response is necessary and therefore the Motion is ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to the Court.
On March 15, 2002, Plaintiff Dr. Hector Senu-oke initiated this case against Defendants Earl and Betty Van Pemberton. On March 25, 2002, Defendants filed an action against Plaintiff in the Boyle County, Kentucky Circuit Court. Both cases arose out of the same transactions and occurrences and involved the same causes of action. The Defendants perfected service upon Plaintiff and all parties appeared in the Kentucky Circuit Court. In February 2003, the parties settled all claims and the Kentucky case was dismissed. However, Plaintiff, in this case, did not perfect service on the Pembertons, nor did he alert them of this action during the proceedings in the Kentucky Court. Instead, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Defendants in the Court (Doc. 17), which was ultimately set aside (Doc. 32). The Court ultimately concluded that Plaintiff's case was barred by res judicata and Defendants were awarded sanctions (Docs. 32 and 36).
Plaintiff then requested the Court re-open this case asserting that the Kentucky judge made the Defendants aware that a case was pending in the Southern District of Ohio. The Court again held that regardless of whether this case were reopened, the result would be the same. This case is barred by res judicata. Defendants again sought and were awarded sanctions. Defendants have been repeatedly been forced to respond to Plaintiff's frivolous motions which have not contained the potential for a meritorious claim.
In total, Plaintiff has been ordered to pay Defendants $4,983.95 by May 30, 2008. ( See Doc. 51, April 30, 2008 Order). In the alternative, Plaintiff has been instructed that if he cannot make a lump sum payment, he should contact Defendants' counsel, Kendra Carpenter, to set up a payment plan. For example, Plaintiff could agree to pay $500 a month until the amount of the judgment is satisfied.
Despite the Court's April 30, 2008 Order, Plaintiff has again submitted a motion to the Court stating that he is having financial difficulty and cannot pay the judgment at this time. The Court, however, will not partake in collection efforts at this time. The Court's judgment will remain in effect and Plaintiff Dr. Hector Senu-oke is ORDERED to pay $4,983.95. Defendants can continue to pursue collection efforts, but the Court urges the parties to work out a payment plan.
Finally, the Court, by way of this Order, hereby instructs Plaintiff Dr. Hector Senu-oke that this case is closed and no further documents of any kind will be accepted by Plaintiff for filing. Further, the Court is hereby issuing a formal warning to Plaintiff that if he attempts to or files any further motions in this case, the Court may declare Plaintiff a harassing and vexatious litigator. See Johnson v. University Hous., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90653, 36-38 (S.D. Ohio 2007); see also Steward v. Fleet Financial, 229 F.3d 1154 (6th Cir. 2000) ("These restrictions could include, but are not limited to, requiring Plaintiff to file a bond to cover the opposing party's attorney's fees.").
Based on the aforementioned, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Doc. 54). Further, the Clerk of Courts is instructed not to accept any filings from Plaintiff Dr. Hector Senu-oke.
The Clerk shall remove Document 54 from the Court's pending motions list.
The Clerk shall remove this case from the Court's pending cases list.