Lucas v. Jolin et al
Filing
88
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 85 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/19/2016. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
VINCENT LUCAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Aurelio Jolin et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:15-cv-108
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 85)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 15, 2016,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 85). Plaintiff filed an objection on
August 1, 2016. (Doc. 86). 1
1
In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff requested that the Court declare Defendant Aurelio
Jolin (also known as Victor Jolin) personally liable for a judgment Plaintiff received against a
company called Qall Cord Philippines Limited Co. in a different case before the Southern
District of Ohio, case No. 1:12-cv-630. (Doc. 32, at 17). The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation recommended denying that relief, which is the only portion of the Report and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Plaintiff’s objections are not well taken. The
Report and Recommendation correctly asserts that Jolin, who was not personally named in the
earlier lawsuit, was not given an opportunity to defend against any claim of personal liability,
and therefore cannot be held liable for the prior judgment. Plaintiff alternatively argues that this
claim can be viewed as a post-judgment action to “pierce the corporate veil” of Qall Cord
Philippines Limited Co. However, as the Report and Recommendation explains, Plaintiff has not
alleged a sufficient factual basis for finding a connection between Jolin and Qall Cord to find
liability.
1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted. 2
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s most recent unopposed motion for default judgment against Defendants
Aurelio “Victor” Jolin, Visram, Inc., Shawn Wolmuth and Premium Outsourced
Solutions, Inc. (Doc. 82) is GRANTED;
2) The prior motion for summary judgment and prior motion for default judgment
(Docs. 68, 69) is DENIED AS MOOT;
3) Defendants Aurelio “Victor” Jolin, Visram, Inc., Shawn Wolmuth and Premium
Outsourced Solutions, Inc. are ordered to pay Plaintiff damages in the total amount
of $45,600, together with costs, with interest to be paid at the statutory rate from
the date of final judgment until said judgment is satisfied 3; and
4) Defendants and their employees, agents and aliases, and all other persons acting
directly or indirectly in concert with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from
engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable act or practice in violation of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, or Ohio’s
Consumer Sales Protection Act, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1345.01 et seq., or Ohio’s
Telephone Sales Solicitation Act, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4719.01 et seq., as well as
the related provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/19/16
s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
2
This Order does not adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Report and
Recommendation recommended that the case be closed, as all pending motions would be
resolved. However, since the filing of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has filed a
motion to compel that remains pending. (Doc. 87). Accordingly, it is inappropriate to close the
case at this time.
3
All four Defendants are jointly and severally liable for this award.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?