[Cite as Max, Inc. v. Mughal, 2022-Ohio-3131.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MAX, INC., D.B.A. B&B MUSIC, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 110961 v. : EJAZ A. MUGHAL, ET AL., : Defendants-Appellees. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 8, 2022 Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-20-936919 Appearances: WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP, Benjamin D. Carnahan, and Ethan Clark, for appellant. LISA B. FORBES, J.: Appellant, Max, Inc., d.b.a. B&B Music (“Max, Inc.”) appeals the trial court’s journal entry denying its “motion for reconsideration and to correct judgment for [sic] nunc pro tunc, or in the alternative, vacation of the judgment” against appellee, Ejaz A. Mughal (“Mughal”). After reviewing the facts and the pertinent law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. Facts and Procedural History Max, Inc. filed a complaint against Mughal and Prakash, Inc. stemming from a contractual relationship between the parties. According to Max, Inc., Mughal was a shareholder of Prakash, Inc. and the owner of the property where Prakash, Inc. operated a convenience store. Max, Inc. brought three causes of action: (1) alleging that Mughal and Prakash, Inc. breached a contract for Max, Inc. to provide ATM services, (2) alleging that Mughal breached a “Loan Note and Personal Guaranty” by failing to pay Max, Inc. $2,000, and (3) requesting injunctive relief against both defendants. Mughal failed to plead or respond in any way to the complaint. Max, Inc. moved for default judgment against Mughal “on its Complaint.” On December 24, 2020, the trial court granted Max, Inc.’s motion, ordering “default judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Ejaz A. Mughal, in the amount of $2,000, plus attorney fees in the amount of $1,809.49, plus costs of this action.” The court further found that Max, Inc. had failed to serve the summons and complaint on Prakash, Inc. who was, after the entry of default judgment against Mughal, “the sole remaining defendant * * *.” Max, Inc. voluntarily dismissed Prakash, Inc. on May 14, 2021. On the same day, Max, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment against Mughal. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment as moot on July 1, 2021, finding Mughal “was no longer involved in this case after default judgment was granted against him on 12/24/2020. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is denied as moot. As no defendants are left, this matter is hereby closed. Final.” On September 13, 2021, Max, Inc. filed its “motion for reconsideration and to correct judgment for nunc pro tunc, or in the alternative, vacation of the judgment.”1 In the motion, Max, Inc. addressed the trial court’s December 24, 2020 journal entry granting default judgment against Mughal, asking the court to “correct its [journal entry] to reflect judgment in its favor and against [Mughal] in the total amount of $39,585.33, plus $1,809.49 in attorneys’ fees.” In the alternative, Max, Inc. requested that the trial …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals