Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.

Interested in getting these weekly updates sent right to your inbox? Sign up here!

PE Advent III Realty LLC, PE Alms Hill Realty LLC, PE Reids Valley View Realty LLC, PE Shelton Gardens Realty LLC, PE Georgia Morris Realty LLC, PE Founders Home Realty LLC, PE Entowne Manor Realty LLC, PE St. Clair Manor Realty LLC, PE Jacon Realty LLC, PE Lima Club West Realty LLC v. Downtown Property Management, Inc., Downtown Property Management I, LLC, Hari Ramineni, Brahman Ranimeni, Dharma Ramineni, Veda Ramineni, Derek Kinnear, Crawford Hoying Real Estate Services, LLC
Case #C180674

Quote from Judgment Entry:

Plaintiffs-appellees ... were companies whose businesses “own[ed] and operate[d] various ‘HUD Properties’ across the United States.” Defendant-appellant Crawford Hoying Real Estate Services, LLC, (hereinafter “Hoying”) operates a company that brokers the purchase of real estate. Defendants-appellants Downtown Property Management, Inc., Downtown Property Management I, LLC, Hari Ramineni, Brahman Ramineni, Dharma Ramineni, and Veda Ramineni (hereinafter “DPM”) sold 11 properties in a group to various PE LLCs, having created a separate LLC for each transaction. Defendant-appellant Derek Kinnear was the real estate broker for DPM. The sale resulted in litigation, but that matter was subsequently dismissed after the parties agreed to a settlement. A second complaint was later filed by the PE LLCs, which they claimed concerned matters that did not fall within the terms of the settlement agreement.

State of Ohio v. Jennifer Chandler
Case # C190153

Quote from Judge Myer's Opinion:

Defendant-appellant Jennifer Chandler appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting her, following guilty pleas, of extortion and attempted extortion.

Chandler was indicted on three counts of extortion in violation of R.C. 2905.11(A)(5). The state and Chandler reached a plea agreement in which Chandler pled guilty to one count of extortion, a felony of the third degree, and one count of attempted extortion, a felony of the fourth degree. The third count of extortion was dismissed. After accepting Chandler’s guilty pleas, the trial court continued the case for sentencing. Chandler’s counsel asked the court to release Chandler on bond, stating that he had informed Chandler that if she were released on bond, stayed out of trouble, and appeared for sentencing, it would demonstrate to the court that she would be successful on probation. The trial court granted Chandler’s request to be released on bond. The court informed Chandler that “if you get into any kind of trouble or you don’t show up for sentencing, I will give you every single day I can in prison. Got it?”

John N. Semertzides, M.D. v. Bethesda North Hospital, Tri-Health Hospitals
Case #C180659

Quote from Judgment Entry:

John N. Semertzides, M.D., appeals from the trial court’s entry granting the motion by Bethesda North Hospital and TriHealth, Inc., (“the hospitals”) to dismiss Semertzides’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The complaint against the hospitals asserted claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with a business contract, which were based on the hospitals’ revocation of privileges that had been granted to Semertzides. It alleged that the hospitals had granted Semertzides privileges to practice surgery through their organizations, thus establishing a business relationship between the parties. Semertzides alleged that he relied on his continued relationship with the hospitals as his sole means of support. The complaint further alleged that the parties’ relationship created an implied contract of employment, and that the hospitals breached this contract when they revoked Semertzides’s privileges following a peerreview investigation.

State of Ohio v. Eamond Railey
Case #C190157

Quote from Judgment Entry:

...The court ordered the sentence in the case numbered B-1801970 for the community-control violation to run consecutively to the sentences in the other two cases. It ordered the sentences in the other two cases to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentence for the community-control violation, for a total of 60 months’ incarceration. In his sole assignment of error, Railey contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him. He argues that maximum consecutive sentences for low-level felonies were grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses. This assignment of error is not well taken.