COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70846 CAROL A. PISANI : ACCELERATED DOCKET : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and : -vs- : OPINION : GLENN T. PISANI : PER CURIAM : : Defendant-Appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JAN. 16, 1997 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 300325 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Carol A. Pisani, Pro Se Richard S. Koblentz, Esq. 30 Commons Court Craig J. Morice, Esq. Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Koblentz & Koblentz 75 Public Square - Suite 1025 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 1 - - 2 - PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 17 Ohio App.3d 158. Defendant-appellant, Glenn Pisani ("Mr. Pisani"), appeals the trial court's ruling which denied his request for an injunction to permanently enjoin plaintiff-appellee, Carol A. Pisani ("Ms. Pisani"), from filing any document in the state of Ohio, pro se, in connection with any action whereby certain enumerated parties were named. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the trial court's ruling. This appeal stems from the proceedings of the divorce case of Pisani v. Pisani, DR-219919, Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Domestic Relations Division. Numerous post-decree motions and appeals have been initiated relating to orders concerning property division, child support, child custody, and child visitation. Subsequent to the trial court's ruling concerning property division, Ms. Pisani alleged that Mr. Pisani had in his possession some twenty-four videotapes containing footage of various family events and activities, and that she was entitled to copies of same. In November of 1995, the trial court ordered Mr. Pisani to, inter - 3 - alia, actively find the videotapes and advise the court as to their whereabouts. Mr. Pisani was unable to locate the videotapes. Ms. Pisani filed a pro se complaint in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Mr. Pisani wrongfully and maliciously withheld the videotapes from her, which constituted both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Pisani filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Ms. Pisani's complaint. Mr. Pisani filed a counterclaim alleging that her pro se filings have been frivolous in nature and have unduly burdened the judicial resources of both the General and Domestic Relations Divisions of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the Eighth District Court of Appeals, as well as Mr. Pisani's counsel. Mr. Pisani requested a permanent injunction to enjoin Ms. Pisani from filing any pro se document in any court having jurisdiction in the state of Ohio, as a litigant in a civil case where certain parties were named. In addition, Mr. Pisani requested that, in any civil action in which Ms. Pisani appeals and names certain parties, she be required to be represented by counsel licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio during all steps of the litigation. On or about May 13, 1996, the trial court dismissed Ms. Pisani's complaint which alleged infliction of emotional distress as a result of the "unfound" videotapes. On May 22, 1996, the trial court issued an order which inter alia dismissed Mr. Pisani's counterclaims as well as his request for a hearing to determine frivolous conduct and sanctions. The - 4 - trial court reasoned that a permanent injunction would constitute a prior restraint on Ms. Pisani's right to seek redress. Mr. Pisani timely appeals from the trial court's ruling and raise the following assignment of error for this court to review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT SUMMARILY DISMISSED APPELLANT'S COUNTERCLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED THEREIN WAS VIOLATIVE OF APPELLEE'S RIGHT TO SEEK REDRESS, AS SAID GROUND IS CONTRARY TO EXISTING OHIO LAW. Mr. Pisani alleges in his sole assignment of error that the trial court erroneously dismissed his counterclaim as a matter of law. He argues that Ms. Pisani's right to seek redress pro se is subordinate to the duty of constitutionally established courts to ensure their efficient administration and accessibility to all within their jurisdiction. Mr. Pisani submits that his request for injunctive relief is constitutional. Ms. Pisani rebuts that the trial court did not erroneously deny Mr. Pisani's request for permanent injunctive relief because the right to redress is a constitutional right. Moreover, Ms. Pisani has demonstrated reasonable grounds to appeal decisions to this court. Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution provides that: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay. Article IV, Section 5, Ohio Constitution provides that a citizen's right to access to the courts for redress must be further - 5 - balanced against the Court's interest in ensuring the efficient administration of justice. The grant or denial of an injunction is solely within the trial court's discretion and, therefore, a reviewing court should not disturb the judgment of the trial court absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Garono v. State (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 171. An abuse of discretion involves more than an error of law or judgment, it connotes an attitude on the part of the court that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary. State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151. An injunction may be granted only upon showing by clear and convincing evidence that the movant is entitled to an injunction. Kaufman v. Limobuster, Inc. (1992), 76 Ohio App.3d 87. A party's right to injunctive relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Marc's Variety Store, Inc. (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 407, 412 citing White v. Long (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 136, 140. A party seeking injunctive relief must establish that: defendant committed a wrongful act; plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; the harm to plaintiff, if the injunction does not issue, clearly outweighs the harm which the injunction would do to the defendants and innocent parties and; the public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. Rite Aid of Ohio at 412. Mr. Pisani cites Weltchek v. Weltchek (July 13, 1981), Lucas App. No. C-00-311 and Kondrat v. Byron (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 495 to support his proposition of law that a permanent injunction is warranted in order to enjoin Ms. Pisani from representing herself - 6 - as a plaintiff in any future or present civil litigation relating to or arising out of the divorce action. Given these circumstances, a permanent injunction is an equitable remedy to prevent future legal harassment perpetuated by Ms. Pisani as a pro se litigant. In Weltchek, the Lucas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of a permanent injunction to enjoin appellant who, pro se, had brought forty-five appeals and original actions within nearly a two-year time span. In Kondrat, the Lake County Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's granting an injunction to enjoin an appellant who, pro se, brought eighty-five original actions against fifty-five different parties within an eleven-year time span. Id. From our review of the record, we find that both Kondrat and Weltchek are readily distinguished and not dispositive to the facts of the instant case. Ms. Pisani has demonstrated reasonable grounds to appeal matters to this court. In addition, Ms. Pisani's appeals to this court have not been nearly as numerous as the number of appeals brought by either appellant in Weltchek or Kondrat. Given these facts, Mr. Pisani has not demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to a permanent injunction. Kaufman. Finally, Mr. Pisani has not demonstrated that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Garono. Accordingly, Mr. Pisani's assignment of error is overruled. - 7 - Judgment affirmed. - 8 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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 Common Pleas 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. JAMES M. PORTER, PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE *DEAN STRAUSBAUGH, JUDGE (* Sitting by assignment: Judge Dean Strausbaugh, retired from the Tenth District Court of Appeals). N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc. App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A) is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .