Walton v. Mercedes Benz USA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Walton v. Mercedes Benz USA, 2018-Ohio-3591.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 106460 JONATHAN WALTON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. MERCEDES BENZ USA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Civil Appeal from the Rocky River Municipal Court Case No. 17 CVI 0544 BEFORE: Stewart, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and S. Gallagher, J. RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 30, 2018 FOR APPELLANT Jonathan Walton, pro se 6876 County Highway 44 Upper Sandusky, OH 43351 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Michael J. Meyer Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P. 200 Public Square, Suite 2300 Cleveland, OH 44114 MELODY J. STEWART, J.: {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Jonathan Walton requested that this appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Mercedes-Benz USA on his complaint for breach of an automobile warranty be placed on our accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 11.1. By doing so, he has agreed that we may render a decision in “brief and conclusionary form” consistent with App.R. 11.1(E). {¶2} We find no merit to Walton’s first assignment of error that the trial court violated his due process right to legal counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution because a civil litigant has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, State ex rel. Burnes v. Athens Cty. Clerk of Courts, 83 Ohio St.3d 523, 524, 700 N.E.2d 1260 (1998), and this contract case is not one where a statute provides for appointed counsel at state expense. State ex rel. McQueen v. Court of Common Pleas, 135 Ohio St.3d 291, 2013-Ohio-65, 986 N.E.2d 925, ¶ 9. Accordingly we summarily overrule this assigned error. {¶3} We also find no merit to the claim Walton raises in the second assignment of error that he was deprived his due process rights and deprived of a fair and impartial trial because the magistrate hearing his case referenced a document that was not admitted into evidence. That document (a letter stating “intent to sue”) was attached to the complaint and properly considered by the magistrate. We therefore find no error. {¶4} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Rocky River Municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. ______________________________________________ MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, 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.
