Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Peter Barnhart, et al. v. Brain Stanley, et al.
Date: 03-21-2025
Case Number: E-24-031
Judge: Not available
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Ohio
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pro Se<br>
Defendant's Attorney: Click Here For The Best Sandusky Breach of Contract Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Sandusky, Ohio, civil litigation lawyers represented the Defendant in a breach of contraction subject to arbitration agreement.
On March 8, 2024, appellant and Barnhart Builders filed suit against appellees, Brian and Amber Stanley, and attached a copy of the contract between Barnhart Builders and the Stanleys as an exhibit to the complaint. The contract is captioned "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Home Builder for Construction of a Single Family Home" and is executed by Barnhart Builders as builder and Brian Stanley as homeowner. Article 6 of the agreement governs dispute resolution and provides for binding dispute resolution through arbitration, administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The agreement further provides that "claims or counterclaims that do not fall within the AAA ... Rules and Mediation Procedures; or involving more than two parties; or with issues of joinder or consolidation, shall be administered under the AAA... Rules in effect on the date of this Agreement."
On April 15, 2024, appellees filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(B), in accordance with the agreement between Barnhart Builders and appellees. On April 30, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion seeking to strike appellees answer and strike the motion as untimely and opposing a stay for arbitration. The trial court denied appellant's motions to strike and granted the stay of proceedings.
* * *
Legal issue Can a court stay an entire action for arbitration, including tort claims and claims involving non-signatories to the arbitration agreement?
Headnote
CIVIL PROCEDURE. ARBITRATION STAY. The court addressed the issue of staying proceedings for arbitration under R.C. 2711.02 (B), including whether a party who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement could have tort claims stayed pending arbitration.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. TIMELINESS OF PLEADINGS. The case examined the timeliness of appellee's answer and motion to stay under Ohio Civil Rules, affirming that the pleadings were filed within the permissible time frame, thus refuting a pro se appellant's motion to strike based on untimeliness.
Key Phrases Stay for arbitration. Arbitration provision. Tort claims. Responsive pleading. Trial court decision.
On March 8, 2024, appellant and Barnhart Builders filed suit against appellees, Brian and Amber Stanley, and attached a copy of the contract between Barnhart Builders and the Stanleys as an exhibit to the complaint. The contract is captioned "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Home Builder for Construction of a Single Family Home" and is executed by Barnhart Builders as builder and Brian Stanley as homeowner. Article 6 of the agreement governs dispute resolution and provides for binding dispute resolution through arbitration, administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The agreement further provides that "claims or counterclaims that do not fall within the AAA ... Rules and Mediation Procedures; or involving more than two parties; or with issues of joinder or consolidation, shall be administered under the AAA... Rules in effect on the date of this Agreement."
On April 15, 2024, appellees filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(B), in accordance with the agreement between Barnhart Builders and appellees. On April 30, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion seeking to strike appellees answer and strike the motion as untimely and opposing a stay for arbitration. The trial court denied appellant's motions to strike and granted the stay of proceedings.
* * *
Legal issue Can a court stay an entire action for arbitration, including tort claims and claims involving non-signatories to the arbitration agreement?
Headnote
CIVIL PROCEDURE. ARBITRATION STAY. The court addressed the issue of staying proceedings for arbitration under R.C. 2711.02 (B), including whether a party who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement could have tort claims stayed pending arbitration.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. TIMELINESS OF PLEADINGS. The case examined the timeliness of appellee's answer and motion to stay under Ohio Civil Rules, affirming that the pleadings were filed within the permissible time frame, thus refuting a pro se appellant's motion to strike based on untimeliness.
Key Phrases Stay for arbitration. Arbitration provision. Tort claims. Responsive pleading. Trial court decision.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Peter Barnhart, et al. v. Brain Stanley, et al.?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Peter Barnhart, et al. v. Brain Stanley, et al.?
This case was heard in Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Ohio, OH. The presiding judge was Not available.
Who were the attorneys in Peter Barnhart, et al. v. Brain Stanley, et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Pro Se. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Sandusky Breach of Contract Law Lawyer Directory.
When was Peter Barnhart, et al. v. Brain Stanley, et al. decided?
This case was decided on March 21, 2025.