Ayad v. Russo

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Ayad v. Russo, 2008-Ohio-5881.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92405 BRAHIM (ABE) AYAD. ET AL. RELATORS vs. JUDGE NANCY RUSSO, ET AL. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED WRIT OF PROHIBITION ORDER NO. 415224 RELEASE DATE: November 12, 2008 ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS: Harvey J. McGowan 1245 East 135th Street E. Cleveland, Ohio 44112-2413 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENTS, 2 JUDGE NANCY RUSSO AND JUDGE RALPH J. McALLISTER: William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT, STEFANIA GEREBY: Stefania Gereby, pro se 20949 Beaconfield Blvd. Rocky River, Ohio 44116 ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., J.: {¶ 1} Sua sponte, the relators complaint for a writ of prohibition is dismissed, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson, 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 1995-Ohio-335, 653 N.E.2d 371. A bankruptcy stay does not preclude the continuation of proceedings against a non-bankrupt party, since the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code extends only to the debtor filing bankruptcy proceedings and not non-bankrupt parties. Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Flugum (1983), 10 Ohio Ap..3d 243, 461 N.E.2d 932; Sowell v. United Companies Lending Corp (July 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76389; Kingsmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Kasunic (Feb. 17, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64720; Terry v. SMJ Growth Corp. (Mar. 2, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76083; Slater v. Haffey (Feb 6, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 59659. 3 {¶ 2} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the relators complaint for a writ of prohibition. Costs to relators. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as mandated by Civ.R. 58(B). Complaint dismissed. ANTHONY O. CALABRESE, JR., JUDGE JAMES J. SWEENEY, A.J., and MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCUR

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.