NAILAH K. BYRD
`
`CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
`
`1200 Ontario Street
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44113
`
`Court of Common Pleas
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM $75
`
`August 27,2022 18:25
`
`By: ROBERTA. WOOD 0031620
`
`Confirmation Nbr. 2637943
`
`JOHN KAFANTARIS
`
`CV 22 965075
`
`vs.
`
`CLE SIGNS, LLC., ET AL.
`
`Judge: KELLY ANN GALLAGHER
`
`Pages Filed: 6
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
`
`1200 Ontario Street
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44113
`
`Court of Common Pleas
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM $75
`
`August 27,2022 18:25
`
`By: ROBERTA. WOOD 0031620
`
`Confirmation Nbr. 2637943
`
`JOHN KAFANTARIS
`
`CV 22 965075
`
`vs.
`
`CLE SIGNS, LLC., ET AL.
`
`Judge: KELLY ANN GALLAGHER
`
`Pages Filed: 6
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`
`CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
`
`CASE NO. CV-22-965075
`
`JUDGE KELLY ANN GALLAGHER
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`JOHN KAFANTARIS,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-vs.-
`
`CLE SIGNS, LLC, et al,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Now come the Defendants, CLE Signs, LLC ("CLE") and Christian Gnizak
`
`("Gnizak"), (collectively "Defendants") by and through counsel, and for their Answer
`
`to the Complaint state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 1 for lack of knowledge
`
`and/or belief.
`
`2.
`
`Paragraphs 2 and 3 are admitted.
`
`3.
`
`Paragraphs 4 and 5 are legal arguments that do not require a response,
`
`but to the extent any response is required they are denied.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 6 insofar as they allege
`
`that Defendants maintain a place of business at 4399 State Road,
`
`Cleveland, but deny the balance of the allegations.
`
`5.
`
`Paragraphs 7and 8 are denied.
`
`COUNTONE
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Paragraphs 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 are denied.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`7.
`
`Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are denied.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff failed to name necessary or indispensable parties pursuant to
`
`Civ. R. 19.
`
`10. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
`
`11. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by his own contributory and/or comparative
`
`negligence.
`
`12. Any injury suffered by Plaintiff was caused by his own actions or
`
`omissions by trespassing in restricted areas of the premises in violation
`
`of ORC Sec. 2911.21(A)(3).
`
`13. Any alleged injuries or damages to Plaintiff are set off by Defendant
`
`Gnizak’s damages resulting from Plaintiff’s trespass and the resultant
`
`emotional distress and mental anguish arising from the incident with
`
`Defendant Gnizak’s dog.
`
`14. Defendants reserve the right to add to their Answer and Counterclaim
`
`and to rely on all Affirmative Defenses as may hereafter be disclosed by
`
`way of discovery.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims
`
`with prejudice, at Plaintiff’s costs.
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`COUNTERCLAIM
`
`For their Counterclaim against Plaintiff, CLE Signs, LLC ("CLE") and Christian
`
`Gnizak allege as follows:
`
`1. CLE owns real property situated at 4399 State Road, Cleveland, Ohio (the
`
`"Premises"), where it conducts a business designing and making signs for
`
`various purposes.
`
`2. Gnizak is an employee of the business.
`
`3. John Kafantaris ("Kafantaris") is a long-term customer of the business
`
`and is intimately familiar with the protocols in place regarding where
`
`customers are supposed to remain while doing business at the
`
`establishment.
`
`4. A sign is prominently displayed at the counter on the Premises stating:
`
`"WARNING - DO NOT TOUCH DOGS. NO CUSTOMERS PERMITTED
`
`PAST COUNTER - NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY OR DEATH."
`
`5. On or about January 14, 2022, Kantafaris entered onto the Premises,
`
`initially as a business invitee.
`
`6. Neither Gnizak nor any other employee of the business was at the
`
`counter at the time Kantafaris came in.
`
`7. Gnizak was in a garage at the back of the building at that time.
`
`8.
`
`In complete disregard for the instructions posted to remain in front of
`
`the counter, Kantafaris unlatched a chain and went behind the counter
`
`into an adjoining room where Gnizak’s dog was sleeping.
`
`9. By doing so, Kantafaris startled the dog by possibly stepping on the dog’s
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`leg.
`
`10. The dog barked, attracting the attention of Gnizak.
`
`11. Gnizak immediately entered the room and asked Kantafaris what
`
`happened.
`
`12. Kantafaris stated that he may have scared the dog and that the dog "may"
`
`have bitten him.
`
`13. When Gnizak pressed him further about the alleged bite, Kantafaris
`
`stated, "I don’t know."
`
`14. At that time, Kantafaris displayed no signs of distress and apologized for
`
`disturbing the dog.
`
`15. Gnizak observed no marks or scratches on Kantafaris’s face at this initial
`
`confrontation.
`
`16. Kantafaris then announced that he "had to take a call" and went outside.
`
`17. A few minutes later Kantafaris came in and Gnizak observed several
`
`scratches on his nose and slight bleeding.
`
`18. When asked by Gnizak what happened outside, Kantafaris stated that
`
`the scratches were from being bitten by the dog.
`
`19. After some additional discussions regarding the work that Kantafaris
`
`wanted done on his vehicles, Kantafaris left the Premises.
`
`20. Kantafaris returned to the shop several days later to drop off vehicles for
`
`sign work.
`
`21. At that time a discussion was had about the prior incident, and
`
`Kantafaris stated that he "probably startled the dog" and it was his fault
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`and that he "loved" the dog.
`
`22. By flaunting the instructions to stay in front of the counter and by
`
`intruding on the dog sleeping in an adjoining room, Kantafaris
`
`committed a criminal trespass in violation of ORC Sec. 2911.21(A)(3).
`
`23. Said trespass and the resulting incident with his dog resulted in
`
`emotional distress and mental anguish for Gnizak, who was concerned
`
`about the ramifications of the incident vis-a-vis the status of
`
`his beloved dog.
`
`24. Since it was forseeable that Kantafaris’s intrusion into the protected
`
`space behind the counter of the Premises occupied by the dog would be
`
`startling to the dog, Kantafaris is liable for the emotional distress and
`
`mental anguish caused to Gnizak by Kantafaris’s invasion of the
`
`restricted area and the alleged reaction of the dog, and the ramifications
`
`attendant thereto.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in an amount in excess of
`
`$25,000, plus costs and such other relief as in law or equity may appertain.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Robert A. Wood
`
`Robert A. Wood (0031620)
`
`2842 Lee Road
`
`Shaker Heights, OH 44120
`
`(216) 402-5872
`
`rawoodjd@gmail.com
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that on the day of August, 2022, a copy of the
`
`foregoing Answer and Counterclaim was served on the following by electronic mail
`
`or regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid:
`
`James E. Boulas, Esq.
`
`7912 Broadway Road
`
`Broadview Heights, OH44147
`
`jim@suetowin.com
`
`/s/Robert A. Wood
`
`
`
`Robert A. Wood (0031620)
`
`Electronically Filed 08/27/2022 18:25 / ANSWERS / CV 22 965075 / Confirmation Nbr. 2637943 / CLDLJ
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
