Opinion
23AP-704
09-19-2024
[Kenesha Lattimore], Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emmanuel Whiteside Estate, Defendant-Appellee.
On brief: Kenesha Lattimore, pro se. Argued: Kenesha Lattimore.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 23CV-1323
On brief: Kenesha Lattimore, pro se.
Argued: Kenesha Lattimore.
DECISION
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kenesha Lattimore, appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing without prejudice her action against defendant-appellee, Emmanuel Whiteside Estate, for want of prosecution. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
{¶ 2} On March 2, 2023, Lattimore, purportedly on behalf of Whiteside Development Co., filed a complaint against Emmanuel Whiteside Estate, alleging that Whiteside Development Co. is the holder of a mechanics lien. On October 12, 2023, after Lattimore had failed to prosecute the action for over six months, the trial court ordered Lattimore to show good cause, within ten days, why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. On October 25, 2023, after Lattimore had not responded to the trial court's order to show good cause, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice for want of prosecution and with costs to Lattimore. That same day, Lattimore filed a response to the show cause order and provided an affidavit for the mechanics lien, a lien notice, and a remodeling contract between Emmanuel Whiteside Jr. and Whiteside Development Co.
{¶ 3} On November 21, 2023, Lattimore filed this appeal.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 4} Lattimore argues the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing appellant's action.
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 5} In her assignment of error, Lattimore argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing her action without considering her response to the order to show cause, which she claims was timely. Appellate review of a trial court's dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1)" 'involves two assessments: first, whether the plaintiff was provided with sufficient notice prior to the dismissal; and second, whether the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion.'" Speakman v. Crabtree, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-879, 2014-Ohio-2152, ¶ 6, quoting Geico Cas. Ins. Co. v. Durant-Baker, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-573, 2014-Ohio-1530, ¶ 8. Abuse of discretion "implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court." Id., citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 6} Lattimore asserts that the trial court abused its discretion because she had timely responded to the order to show cause. Whether or not Lattimore filed a timely response to the trial court's order to show cause, we must affirm the trial court's dismissal on other grounds.
{¶ 7} We note that Lattimore filed the complaint in this action on behalf of Whiteside Development Co. The case caption lists Whiteside Development Co. as the plaintiff, and the complaint states, "Whiteside Development Co., [p]ursuant to [R.C.] 1311.16 * * * brings complaint for rent or damages as justice and equity allows." (Mar. 2, 2023 Compl.) Lattimore signed the complaint "pro se" identifying herself as "The Real Public Defender" and "Paralegal." This gives rise to two issues. First, a corporation, such as Whiteside Development Co., cannot appear in court pro se, but may only participate in court proceedings if represented by a lawyer. Alabi v. Awa Nmi Uma, 10th Dist. No. 98AP-1196, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3023, *6 (June 30, 1999).
{¶ 8} Second, nonlawyers are not permitted to act in a representative capacity in Ohio. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 106 Ohio St.3d 144, 2005-Ohio-4104, ¶ 7. While an individual may act in a pro se capacity by representing himself or herself in court without a lawyer, a nonlawyer is generally not allowed to represent another in a legal action. See R.C. 4705.01; Lusk v. Crown Pointe Care Ctr., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-549, 2019-Ohio-1326, ¶ 8. Moreover, a nonlawyer may not practice law in defense of a corporate entity merely because he holds some official corporate position. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Clapp & Affiliates Fin. Serv., Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 509 (2002). Nothing in the record before us suggests that Lattimore is an attorney authorized to practice law in Ohio, and therefore she is not able to represent Whiteside Development Co. as holder of the lien in this legal action.
{¶ 9} We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court here, given that Lattimore was not permitted to act in a representative capacity on behalf of Whiteside Development Co. Accordingly, we overrule Lattimore's assignment of error.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 10} Having overruled Lattimore's sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and deny all pending motions as moot.
Judgment affirmed.
MENTEL, P.J and BEATTY BLUNT, J, concur