[Cite as Novotny v. Krlich, 2017-Ohio-8287.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
BARBARA NOVOTNY, et al., : MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs-Appellees, :
CASE NO. 2017-T-0074
- vs - :
GARRICK KRLICH, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CV
01519.
Judgment: Appeal dismissed.
Barbara Novotny, Adam Novotny, Timothy Novotny, Florence Buydos, Brian Trinkes,
Tracy Trinkes, David Nicora, Brian Stipetich, and Mary Beth Foltz, (pro se) C/O
Barbara Novotny, 3529 Pothour Wheeler Road, Hubbard, OH 44425 (Plaintiffs-
Appellees).
Caryn M. Groedel, and Matthew S. Grimsley, Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., L.P.A.,
31340 Solon Road, Suite 27, Cleveland, OH 44139 (For Defendant-Appellant).
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.
{¶1} Garrick Krlich appeals the trial court’s decision declaring him a vexatious
litigator and ordering him under R.C. 2323.52(D)(1) to seek leave of court prior to
pursuing or continuing any legal proceedings. He also appeals several other prior trial
court decisions. We dismiss.
{¶2} An appealing party subject to a vexatious litigator order requiring leave
before pursuing or continuing legal proceedings “shall file an application for leave to
proceed in the court of appeals in which the legal proceedings would be instituted or are
pending.” R.C. 2323.52(F)(2).
{¶3} Absent the requisite request for leave, a court of appeals is required to
dismiss the proceedings. R.C. 2323.52(I). The leave requirement includes a direct
appeal from the initial vexatious litigator designation. State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty.
Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, ¶1.
{¶4} In State ex rel. Sapp, the Supreme Court considered a petition for a writ of
prohibition to prevent the court of appeals from proceeding with an appeal from the trial
court’s decision finding Berman a vexatious litigator. Berman filed his notice of appeal
within the 30-day time period, but he sought leave to proceed after the 30 days expired.
Id. at ¶23-27. The Supreme Court held the court of appeals patently and
unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed due to his failure to seek leave within 30
days:
{¶5} “The court of appeals also erred in granting Berman's belated motions for
leave to proceed, which were filed after his appeal and without leave of court, in
contravention of the plain language of R.C. 2323.52(D)(3) and (F)(2). The court was
required to dismiss the appeal pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(I) once it knew that Berman
had filed his appeal without obtaining leave to proceed. And by the time Brown actually
sought leave to institute his appeal, the time to appeal had expired.” Id. at ¶27; State ex
rel. DeWine v. Johnson, 4th Dist. Athens No. 17CA13, 2017-Ohio-5701, ¶6.
2
{¶6} Here, like Berman, Krlich timely filed his notice of appeal August 9, 2017
from several trial court decisions, including the trial court’s vexatious litigator
determination dated July 12, 2017. He did not, however, seek leave to appeal any of
the trial court decisions within 30 days.
{¶7} According, we lack jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed. All other
pending motions are dismissed.
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.,
concur.
3