arrow left
arrow right
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
  • OHIO DEPT OF TAXATION vs. Santana, Susan J MLM Electronic Tax Liens document preview
						
                                

Preview

ELECTRONICALLY-FILED WOOD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT Thursday, October 19, 2023 3:19:28 PM 2021EL3039 - Mary "Molly" L Mack IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT DOUGLAS F. CUBBERLEY WOOD COUNTY, OHIO CLERK OF COURTS WOOD COUNTY OHIO State of Ohio Department of * Taxation, * Plaintiff, * Case Nos. 2019-EL-2206 vs. * Susan J. Santana, * Defendant. * PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Pursuant to Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 42(A)(1), Plaintiff moves this Court to consolidate the cases listed below based upon common questions of law and fact. This Motion is supported by the attached Memorandum in Support. 2019-EL-2206 2020-EL-3178 2021-EL-1493 2021-EL-3039 2022-EL-0108 2022-EL-2297 2022-EL-3439 2023-EL-1507 Special Counsel for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost /s/ Michael D. Stultz Michael D. Stultz (0082291) STULTZ & STEPHAN, LTD. 106 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 400 Tiffin, Ohio 44883 T: 567-207-3052 F: 419-447-5150 E: mds@stultzstephan.com Trial Counsel for Plaintiff 201082-3 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I. LAW & ARGUMENT The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure provide in pertinent part that when causes of action involve a common question of law or fact, the court may order some or all of the actions consolidated. OH. R. CIV. P. 42(A)(1); see also, Buck v. Milano, (Ninth Appellate District, 2014), 2014–Ohio–5640 (further stating that “Generally, courts favor consolidation whenever possible.”). The purpose of case consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay through duplicative litigation, thereby promoting the interests of judicial economy. See id.; see also, Clemente v. Gardner, (Fifth Appellate District, 2004), 2004–Ohio–2254. Application of this standard to the judgment liens presently before this Court demonstrates that consolidation should be ordered. See OH. R. CIV. P. 42(A)(1). Plaintiff’s tax liens against Defendant(s) are set forth in the case caption. Quite simply, each tax lien encompasses the same issues of law and fact with the same witnesses, documents, and evidence to be presented. Therefore, consolidating the tax liens would avoid unnecessary costs, delay, and permit Plaintiff to more efficiently pursue proceedings in aid of judgment execution. II. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements set forth in the Civil Rules and is thus entitled to case consolidation of the tax liens. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter case consolidation for each of the liens incorporated in the case caption. 201082-3 Special Counsel for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost: /s/ Michael D. Stultz Michael D. Stultz (0082291) STULTZ & STEPHAN, LTD. 106 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 400 Tiffin, Ohio 44883 T: 567-207-3052 F: 419-447-5150 E: mds@stultzstephan.com Trial Counsel for Plaintiff PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following on October 19, 2023: Via First Class U.S. Mail Susan J. Santana 28159 Blue Grass Drive Walbridge, OH 43465 Defendant Special Counsel for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost /s/ Michael D. Stultz Michael D. Stultz (0082291) STULTZ & STEPHAN, LTD. 201082-3