{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:2a3d67", "proof": "sha256:f60d7958862719e5b4faa053268669b53689cb6d995668ad367d1f259a236f43", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[Cite as Talib v. Perkins Restaurant, 2026-Ohio-445.]", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "MAHONING COUNTY", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "RAKHSANDA TALIB, et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "PERKINS RESTAURANT et al.,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "O P I N I O N A N D J U D G M E N T E N T R Y", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Civil Appeal from the", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Case No. 2025 CV 00580", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "BEFORE:", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Katelyn Dickey, Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT:", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Rakhshanda Talib, Pro Se and", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Atty. Timothy D. Berkebile, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, for Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Dated: February 11, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "– 2 –", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Robb, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "{¶1} Appellant, Rakhshanda Talib, appeals the trial court’s July 24, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "judgment granting the motion to dismiss filed by Appellees, Perkins Restaurant, JDK", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Management Co., and Phoenix Management Services. For the following reasons, we", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Statement of the Case", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "{¶2} Rakhshanda Talib and Myron Grace filed their complaint in March of 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "against Perkins Restaurant, JDK Management Co., Phoenix Management Services, and", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "“known counsel.” Talib and Grace allege they were customers at a Perkins Restaurant", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "in Austintown, Ohio in April of 2023. They claim they were not timely waited on and when", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "they were waited on, they asked to be seated next to the window near the “white", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "customers.” The waitress sat them elsewhere. Talib and Grace allege the waitress", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "became quiet and “turned red.” They left the restaurant because they felt their seating", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "placement was racial discrimination. Thereafter, Talib and Grace called Perkins to", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "complain, but their concerns were not addressed.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "{¶3} As a result of the foregoing, Talib and Grace claim to have suffered", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "damages. Their complaint alleges Perkins Restaurant violated R.C. 1345.02 and", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices by its refusal to serve them. Talib and", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Grace claim Appellees created a hostile environment and treated them in a discriminatory", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "manner. They sought damages for the alleged statutory violations. They also sought", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "damages for a “threat of force and intimidation.” They allege intentional infliction of", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "emotional harm and racism. Grace also alleged damages for loss of consortium. (March", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "10, 2025 Complaint.)", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "{¶4} Talib and Grace attached a copy of an opinion issued by this court in Grace", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "v. Perkins Restaurant, 2025-Ohio-213, ¶ 22 (7th Dist.) to their complaint. Our opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "was issued January 24, 2025. They also attached a copy of a transcript detailing alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "telephone calls between Grace, Talib, and Perkins Restaurant employees. (March 10,", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "2025 Complaint.)", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "{¶5} Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Appellees", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "alleged Talib and Grace failed to sufficiently plead the essential elements of an Ohio", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "– 3 –", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Consumer Sales Practice Act (CSPA) claim and the allegations do not assert a deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "act or practice under the Act. Appellees argued the allegations, even if true, do not rise", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "to the level of an unfair act or practice. Additionally, Appellees asserted Talib and Grace", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "failed to assert a loss of consortium claim because a derivative claim depends on stating", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "a cognizable underlying claim. (April 7, 2025 Motion to Dismiss.)", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "{¶6} Further, Appellees argued the claims in this case were nearly identical to", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "those asserted in the prior lawsuit. In the prior action, the trial court granted the", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "defendants’ motion to dismiss and found plaintiffs failed to set forth a viable cause of", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "action that would entitle them to relief. (April 7, 2025 Motion to Dismiss.)", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "{¶7} Appellees attached this court’s decision issued after an appeal was taken", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "by Grace. This is the same opinion attached to Talib and Grace’s complaint, in which we", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "affirmed the trial court’s grant of dismissal in their prior civil case. This court noted:", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "Even believing as true each of the factual allegations set forth in the", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "complaint, Grace can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. Nothing", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "in the complaint suggests that Perkins or the waitress acted in a deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "manner. Nor do the facts support a claim that Perkins acted in an unfair", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "manner. The complaint did not allege that other patrons of another race", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "were seated ahead of Plaintiffs. It did not allege that other employees were", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "working to assist the waitress. It did not allege that the waitress made any", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "mention of the Plaintiffs’ race or that they were not seated because of their", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "race. And there is no indication whatsoever as to why the waitress seated", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "the Plaintiffs at a table away from the window. There are no factual", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "assertions to support Plaintiffs’ complaint. Thus, the trial court properly", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "Grace v. Perkins Restaurant at ¶ 22.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "{¶8} Talib and Grace did not file an opposition to Appellees’ motion to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "with the trial court in this case. The court granted the motion to dismiss and concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "res judicata applied, regardless of the roles of the parties or the manner in which they", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "were identified or listed in the prior action. The court found the plaintiffs and the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "were essentially the same as those in the prior civil case. The trial court also noted Talib", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "– 4 –", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "failed to appeal from the trial court’s judgment dismissing the parties’ prior civil action.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "(July 24, 2025 Judgment.)", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "{¶9} Talib appealed the trial court’s July 24, 2025 judgment pro se. Grace has", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "not appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "Assignments of Error", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "{¶10} Talib raises several arguments on appeal, which we construed as the", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "following four assignments of error:", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "1. Talib alleges the trial court judge is racist and erred by finding", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "there were no allegations in her complaint on which relief could", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "be granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "2. Talib alleges Appellees “violated the 28-day response rule.”", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "3. Talib claims the court of appeals has an obligation to “expand the", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "law to protect [her] against racial discrimination.”", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "4. Talib references several claims, causes of action, and statutes in", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "her appellate brief not referenced in the underlying complaint or", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "{¶11} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "relief may be granted is a procedural motion that tests the sufficiency of the complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 548 (1992).", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "{¶12} To dismiss a complaint for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "be granted, it must appear beyond a doubt the plaintiffs can prove no facts that would", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "entitle them to the requested relief. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "(1988). If there is a set of facts consistent with the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint that", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "would allow the plaintiff to recover, a court may not grant a motion to dismiss. Ransom", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "v. Erie Ins. Co., 2022-Ohio-3528, ¶ 13 (7th Dist.), citing Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "2002-Ohio-2480, ¶ 5.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "{¶13} Appellate courts review orders granting Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "de novo and without deference to the trial court's decision. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford,", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "2004-Ohio-4362, ¶ 5. When reviewing whether a motion to dismiss should have been", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "granted, we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and make all reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "inferences in favor of the plaintiffs. Id. Upon considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "– 5 –", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "dismiss, courts may also consider written documents attached to the complaint. Scardina", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "v. Ghannam, 2005-Ohio-3315, ¶ 13 (7th Dist.).", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "{¶14} As for Talib’s allegation that the trial court judge is racist and the court erred", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "by finding there were no allegations in her complaint on which relief could be granted, we", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "disagree with both assertions.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "{¶15} First, this court has no power to consider whether the trial court judge should", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "have been disqualified. That power lies solely with the Chief Justice of the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Court of Ohio. Ohio Const., art. IV, § 5(C); Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440, 441-442", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "(1978). If a party believes a court of common pleas judge should be disqualified from", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "considering a matter, the party must file an affidavit of disqualification with the clerk of the", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Supreme Court of Ohio pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "{¶16} A court of appeals lacks authority to consider an error regarding the recusal", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "or disqualification of a judge of the court of common pleas. State v. Ramos, 88 Ohio", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "App.3d 394, 398 (9th Dist. 1993), citing Beer, 54 Ohio St.2d at 441-442; State v.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "Hughbanks, 2003-Ohio-187, at ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). Thus, to the extent Talib alleges the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "court judge is racist, we do not have the authority to address this contention, and as such,", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "it does not demonstrate error on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "{¶17} Second, upon accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "making all reasonable inferences in favor of Talib, we agree that res judicata applies and", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "bars the claims in her complaint. Thus, dismissal was warranted.", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "{¶18} Talib alleges in her complaint that Appellees violated the CSPA and", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "intentionally caused her emotional distress. Her complaint also raises a loss of", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "consortium claim on behalf of Grace, a nonparty to this appeal. Each claim raised in the", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "March 10, 2025 complaint arises from and is based on the incident experienced by Talib", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "and Grace at a Perkins Restaurant in April of 2023 and the phone calls regarding that", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "incident.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "{¶19} Each of the claims made in Talib and Grace’s prior complaint filed in", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "February of 2024, in case number 24 CV 389, also arise from the incident at a Perkins", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "Restaurant in April of 2023. Like the complaint in this case, the 2024 complaint named", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Perkins Restaurant as a defendant. The instant case additionally names JDK", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "Management Co. and Phoenix Management Services as defendants, but does not", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "– 6 –", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "identify the relationship or connection between these entities and Perkins. The prior suit", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "also named general counsel for Perkins Restaurant as a defendant. The claims made in", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "the prior complaint were dismissed by the trial court, and we affirmed the judgment of", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "dismissal.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "{¶20} As detailed under the statement of the case, Appellees argued, and the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "court agreed, that the claims made in this case are nearly identical to those asserted in", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "Talib and Grace’s prior lawsuit. Talib attached a copy of our opinion issued in Grace v.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Perkins Restaurant, 2025-Ohio-213, ¶ 22 (7th Dist.) to her 2025 complaint. Our opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "was decided on January 24, 2025. It reflects that the trial court granted Perkins’ motion", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "to dismiss filed in the prior lawsuit, and we affirmed that decision. Id. Although Talib was", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "not a party to that prior appeal, she was a plaintiff in the underlying proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "{¶21} In this case, Talib did not oppose the motion to dismiss, and the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "granted it, finding the claims herein are barred by res judicata. (July 24, 2025 Judgment.)", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "In Ohio, “[t]he doctrine of res judicata encompasses the two related", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "concepts of claim preclusion, also known as res judicata or estoppel by", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "judgment, and issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.” O'Nesti", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59, 2007-Ohio-1102, 862 N.E.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "803, ¶ 6. “Claim preclusion prevents subsequent actions, by the same", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of a transaction", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "that was the subject matter of a previous action.” Id. The previous action is", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "conclusive for all claims that were or that could have been litigated in the", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "first action. See Holzemer v. Urbanski (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 129, 133, 712", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "N.E.2d 713.", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "(Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Schachter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 2009-", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Ohio-1704, ¶ 27.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "[R]es judicata is not to be so rigidly applied ‘when fairness and justice", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "would not support it.’ State ex rel. Estate of Miles v. Piketon, 121 Ohio St.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "231, 2009-Ohio-786, 903 N.E.2d 311, ¶ 30, citing Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores,", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 491, 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001) (res judicata is not to", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice or to create an injustice).", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "– 7 –", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "AJZ's Hauling, L.L.C. v. TruNorth Warranty Programs of N. America, 2023-Ohio-3097, ¶", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "18. The doctrine should not be employed when its application results in a manifest", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "injustice or when it contravenes an overriding public policy. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "{¶22} The four elements of res judicata or claim preclusion are (1) a prior valid", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "judgment on the merits; (2) a second action involving the same parties; (3) the second", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) both", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Sheridan v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "2009-Ohio-1808, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.), citing Reasoner v. Columbus, 2005-Ohio-468, ¶ 5, and", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381-382 (1995).", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "{¶23} Talib and Grace’s 2025 complaint reasserts claims arising from the same", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "nucleus of facts that was the subject matter set forth in their complaint filed in their 2024", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "lawsuit. In both actions, Talib and Grace seek to recover damages allegedly sustained", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "as a result of a discriminatory encounter they experienced as customers at a Perkins", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "Restaurant in April of 2023 and in phone calls with the restaurant about their experience.", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "In each cause of action, Talib and Grace alleged they had to wait to be seated and they", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "were then not seated near the window or near the “white customers.” Talib and Grace", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "alleged the delay in their service and seat placement was racially motivated and", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "discriminatory. Additionally, Talib and Grace claimed the series of phone calls about their", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "experience caused them harm. In each complaint, they rely on the Ohio CSPA and asked", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "for damages for emotional distress; threat of force and intimidation for a hostile", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "environment; and intentional infliction of harm and racism.", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "{¶24} In the first and prior action, the trial court found Talib and Grace failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "demonstrate a violation of the CSPA and did not identify a deceptive or unfair practice or", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "act. We affirmed. Because the allegations in the 2024 case generally allege the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "were racially discriminated against by a Perkins’ employee in Austintown, Ohio in April of", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "2023 when she did not seat them at a table by the window are the same as those raised", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "in the 2025 complaint, we agree res judicata applies to the claims herein.", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "{¶25} A review of the proceedings confirms the 2025 complaint and our decision", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "in the prior case show Talib and Grace were reasserting the same or similar claims arising", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "from the same transaction that was the subject matter of the 2024 action. Thus, this", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "– 8 –", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "aspect of Talib’s first assigned error lacks merit. Talib’s previous action was conclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "for all claims that were or could have been litigated.", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "{¶26} The second discernable assignment of error in Talib’s brief contends", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Appellees “violated the 28-day response rule.” Civ.R. 12(A)(2) generally states a party", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "shall file a responsive motion 28 days after service. Talib does not identify any facts", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "supporting her argument in this regard.", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "{¶27} This argument seems to stem from Talib’s prior civil case. In the prior case,", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "Grace argued on appeal the Perkins defendants did not timely answer or defend the", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "complaint. We disagreed and found the motion to dismiss was timely because Grace had", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "not complied with the rules of service in Civ.R. 4.1. Grace v. Perkins Restaurant at ¶ 29.", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "{¶28} In this case, the complaint was filed March 10, 2025. Appellees filed their", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss 28 days later on April 7, 2025. Thus, we do not perceive a violation of", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "the 28-day response rule. This argument lacks merit.", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "{¶29} Next, Talib claims the court of appeals has an obligation to “expand the law", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "to protect [her] against racial discrimination.” Talib does not provide any authority or", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "analysis in support of this contention.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "{¶30} First, we emphasize “it is not the function of the court of appeals to root out", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "law in support of an argument, App.R. 16(A)(7).” Matter of E.T., 2023-Ohio-444, ¶ 58 (7th", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Dist.). Because this argument is unsupported, we do not construct it for Talib. This", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "assignment could be overruled for this reason. Byers DiPaola Castle v. Ravenna City", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "Planning Comm., 2011-Ohio-6095, ¶ 35 (disregarding conclusory arguments", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "unsupported in appellant's brief).", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "{¶31} Nevertheless, we also note the function of courts is to apply the law as", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "written by the General Assembly. Clark v. Scarpelli, 91 Ohio St.3d 271, 291 (2001), citing", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Cablevision of the Midwest, Inc. v. Gross, 70 Ohio St.3d 541, 544 (1994). Our role is not", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "to legislate or expand the law. Thus, Talib’s argument that we must expand the law to", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "protect against racial discrimination lacks merit and is overruled.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "{¶32} Finally, as her fourth assignment, Talib appears to assert new claims and", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "references new provisions for the first time on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "{¶33} In her merit brief, Talib appears to allege that Appellees violated Title 41 of", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "the Ohio Revised Code, R.C. 4112, and violated her civil rights. Talib cites R.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "– 9 –", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Case No. 25 MA 0079", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "4112.02(G), (I), and (J); R.C. 2307.60(A)(1); R.C. 2905.12(A); R.C. 2917.21(A)(10) and", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "(B)(1); R.C. 2917.32; R.C. 128.32(E) and (F); and R.C. 2909.04(A)(1). Talib also", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "references R.C. 2921.13(G) and R.C. 2921.13(A)(2) and (3). She refers to allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "civil falsification, civil liability for criminal acts, coercion, telecommunications harassment,", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "disrupting public services, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These statutes", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "and claims are not raised in her complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "{¶34} Because parties cannot raise new arguments for the first time on appeal,", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "we decline to address them. Falcon Drilling Co., LLC v. Omni Energy Group, LLC, 2024-", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "Ohio-2558, ¶ 80 (7th Dist.); State v. Fleischer, 2023-Ohio-3597, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.) (parties", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "cannot change the theory of their case on appeal). To the extent Appellant references", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "statutes or refers to potential claims or causes of action for the first time on appeal, we", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "disregard them.", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "{¶35} Moreover and as stated, because allegations of this nature could have been", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "raised in Talib’s prior civil action, res judicata applies and bars such claims as well. State", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "ex rel. Norris v. Adult Parole Auth., 2025-Ohio-5011, ¶ 10. This assigned error lacks merit", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "and is overruled.", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "{¶36} In light of the foregoing, each of Talib’s arguments lacks merit. The trial", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "court's judgment dismissing the underlying complaint is affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "Hanni, J., concurs.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "Dickey, J., concurs.", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "[Cite as Talib v. Perkins Restaurant, 2026-Ohio-445.]", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "the Appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "NOTICE TO COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "This document constitutes a final judgment entry.", "paragraph_id": "para_281" } ], "word_count": 3174, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "d6475573be04864a2967f8ac382640ca69f39186f03ab8595f4ca8c472f5e0c1", "source_url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2026/2026-Ohio-445.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T08:09:38.917+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "d6475573be04864a2967f8ac382640ca69f39186f03ab8595f4ca8c472f5e0c1", "recomputed_sha256": "d6475573be04864a2967f8ac382640ca69f39186f03ab8595f4ca8c472f5e0c1", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T08:37:31.265Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:f60d7958862719e5b4faa053268669b53689cb6d995668ad367d1f259a236f43", "version": "legal-2026-10-12", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-12+legal-2026-10-12+2026-10-12T08:07:52", "content_hash": "sha256:f60d7958862719e5b4faa053268669b53689cb6d995668ad367d1f259a236f43", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T09:37:31.871Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-25-ma-0079-2026-02-11" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }