Case No.

______________

Supreme Court
of the State of Ohio
STATE OF OHIO ex rel.
SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC,
Relator,

v.

HEATHER S. RUSSELL,
Presiding and Administrative Judge, Hamilton County Municipal Court,
Respondent.

Original Action in Mandamus and Procedendo

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND WRIT OF PROCEDENDO

Curt C. Hartman (0064242) Joseph T. Deters (0012084)

THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C. HARTMAN Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney
7394 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8 James W. Harper (0009872)
Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Chief Assistant, Civil Division, Office of the
(513) 379-2923 Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney
[email protected] 230 East Ninth Street, 4th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
(513) 946-3000
Rebecca Heimlich (0064004)
[email protected]
FINNEY LAW FIRM LLC
4270 Ivy Point Blvd., Suite 225 Counsel for
Cincinnati, OH 45245 Respondent Heather S. Russell
(513) 943-6655
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for
Relator Salvador Properties, LLC
 SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. : Case No. ___________

SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC :
℅ Chris Finney, Legal Counsel :
Finney Law Firm, LLC :
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 :
Cincinnati, OH 45245, :
:
Relator, :
: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
v. : WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
: WRIT OF PROCEDENDO
HEATHER S. RUSSELL, :
Presiding and Administrative Judge, :
Hamilton County Municipal Court :
1000 Main Street, Room 205 :
Cincinnati, OH 45202, :
:
Also serve:
:
Joseph T. Deters
:
Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney
:
230 East Ninth Street, 4th Floor
:
Cincinnati, OH 45202
:
:
Respondent.
:

Comes now the STATE OF OHIO, by and on relation to Relator SALVADOR

PROPERTIES, LLC, and, in support of its claim for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, alleges

as follows:

1. This is an action for a writ of mandamus in the nature of procedendo and/or a writ

of procedendo directing and compelling Respondent HEATHER S. RUSSELL, in her capacity as

Presiding and Administrative Judge of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, and all acting,

assigned or sitting judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, to proceed henceforth to

judgment in a summary fashion in forcible entry and detainer proceedings pursuant to R.C.
Chapter 1923 and, in particular, with respect to the first cause of actions thereunder, i.e., the

claim to restore immediate possession of leased premises to the landlords.

2. The judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court have failed to act with due

diligence in protecting the fundamental property rights of landlords who, due to breaches of lease

agreements, have filed and seek to have possession of the leased premises restore promptly

consistent with the purpose and intent of the forcible-entry-and-detainer action.

3. A writ of mandamus in the nature of procedendo or a writ of procedendo “issues to

the judges of any inferior court, commanding them to do justice according to the powers of their

office, whenever the same is delayed.” Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190, 192 (1831).

4. The authority of this Court to issue the requested writ of mandamus in the nature of

procedendo or a writ of procedendo derives from the authority of this Court “to superintend all

other inferior tribunals, and therein to enforce the due exercise of those judicial or ministerial

powers with which the [sovereign] or legislature have invested them: and this, not only by

restraining their excesses, but also by quickening their negligence, and obviating their denial of

justice.” Ex parte Crane, 30 U.S. 190, 192 (1831).

5. The immediate and emergency aid of this Court is necessary to estop and rectify the

negligence of the Hamilton County Municipal Court of not providing prompt hearings for the

purpose of restoring possession of leased premises to landlords when there has been a breach of a

lease agreement. Such negligence and omission by the Hamilton County Municipal Court is

contrary to the purpose and intent of the forcible-entry-and-detainer action statutes, as well as

causes an on-going infringement of the fundamental property rights of landlords.

-2-
 6. Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution provides that “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.”

7. One such remedy provided for by due course of law to be afforded to aggrieved

parties are forcible entry and detainer actions.

8. “In 1974, Ohio codified certain rights and responsibilities associated with the

landlord-tenant relationship. The Landlord-Tenant Act, found in Chapter 5321 of the Ohio

Revised Code, prohibits ‘self-help’ remedies in residential leases that had previously been used

by landlords.” Parker v. Salvation Army, 971 N.E.2d 995, 2012-Ohio-2069 ¶11 (8th Dist. 2012).

9. Until adoption of the prohibition against self-help remedies, “the courts of Ohio

permitted a landlord to peacefully retake possession of his premises from a defaulting tenant,

even in the absence of judicial process.” Northfield Park Associates v. Northeast Ohio Harness,

36 Ohio App.3d 14, 20, 521 N.E.2d 466 (8th Dist. 1987). This even applied to residential rental

properties.

10. However, with self-help remedies now prohibited with respect to residential rental

properties, the exclusive remedy now afforded to landlords is through a forcible-entry-and-

detainer action as provided for in Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 1923.

11. “Forcible entry and detainer, as authorized in R.C. Chapter 1923, is a summary

proceeding in which [a court] may make inquiry into disputes between landlords and tenants,

and, where appropriate, order restitution of the premises to the landlord.” Cuyahoga Metro.

Hous. Auth. v. Jackson, 67 Ohio St. 2d 129, 130, 423 N.E.2d 177 (1981).

-3-
 12. “A forcible entry and detainer action is intended to serve as an expedited

mechanism by which an aggrieved landlord may recover possession of real property.” Miele v.

Ribovich, 90 Ohio St.3d 439, 441, 739 N.E.2d 333, 2000-Ohio-193.

13. Thus, “the purpose behind forcible entry and detainer…is to provide a summary,

extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of possession of real estate.” State ex rel.

Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227, 1999-Ohio-422.

14. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus in the nature of procedendo or a writ of

procedendo will lie against the judges of any county court or municipal court when, through

implementation of a policy or through omission, the judges of such court delay in providing

landlords the right to the summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery of

possession of real estate provided for by forcible entry and detainer. See State ex rel GMS Mgt.

Co., Inc. v. Callahan, 45 Ohio St.3d 51, 55, 543 N.E.2d 483 (1989)(“we order Judge Callahan

and all acting, assigned or sitting judges of the Willoughby Municipal Court to proceed

henceforth to judgment in a summary fashion in forcible entry and detainer proceedings pursuant

to R.C. Chapter 1923”).

15. Relator SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC, is an Ohio limited liability company

that owns several rental properties in Hamilton County, Ohio.

16. Respondent HEATHER S. RUSSELL is a judge on the Hamilton County Municipal

Court and presently serves as the Presiding and Administrative Judge of the Hamilton County

Municipal Court.

17. “The right of property is a fundamental right, and ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the

bundle of venerable rights associated with property is strongly protected in the Ohio Constitution

and must be trod upon lightly, no matter how great the weight of other forces.’” State ex rel.

-4-
Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 958 N.E.2d 1235, 2011-Ohio-6117 ¶52 (quoting Norwood v.

Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353, 853 N.E.2d 1115, 2006-Ohio-3799 ¶38)).

18. Through forcible-entry-and-detainer actions, landlords of residential rental property

are able to protect their property interests in any leased premises when a tenant is in breach of the

lease.

19. Forcible-entry-and detainer actions proceed separately and distinctly with two

causes of actions: the first cause of action is to restore the landlord to his premises; the second

cause of action, for money damages. See Porter v. Toops, 62 N.E.2d 769, 769 (2d Dist. 1945).

20. The first cause of action in a forcible-entry-and detainer action is designed to

restore possession of the leased premises to a landlord through an expedited mechanism so as to

respect to the fundamental property rights of landlords.

21. Ohio Rev. Code § 1923.06(H)(1) actually provides that “the claim for restitution of

the premises shall be scheduled for hearing in accordance with local court rules, but in no event

sooner than the seventh day from the date service is complete.” While no specific outside date is

established by statute as to when the claim for restitution of the premises, i.e., the first cause of

action, must be scheduled promptly after the filing of such an action consistent with the purpose

of forcible-entry-and-detainer actions, i.e., “to provide a summary, extraordinary, and speedy

method for the recovery of possession of real estate.” State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio

St.3d 530, 532, 705 N.E.2d 1227, 1999-Ohio-422.

22. And even after the hearing on the first cause of action in a forcible-entry-and-

detainer action is conducted, a further delay necessarily occurs in a landlord actually obtaining

possession of his property. Such delay occurs while awaiting the issuance and signing of the

-5-
writ of restitution and, with the writ having issued, coordination must still be made with the

sheriff’s office to be present at any ensuing set out of the tenant’s property.

23. The Hamilton County Municipal Court is systematically having most of the hearing

dates for the first cause of action in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions, i.e., for restoration of the

premises, scheduled at least 60 days from the date of the filing of the complaint.

24. Based upon information and belief, the Hamilton County Municipal Court has not

conducted a forcible-entry-and-detainer proceeding since on or about March 15, 2020, either a

first cause of action, i.e., for restoration of the premises, or a second cause of action, i.e., a

determination of damages. If the Hamilton County Municipal Court has conducted any such

proceedings since March 15, 2020, it has been in a small and select number of cases while the

significant majority of forcible-entry-and-detainer actions experience inaction or delay by the

Hamilton County Municipal Court.

25. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a spreadsheet summarizing the forcible-entry-and-

detainer actions filed during the month of May 2020 in the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

26. As indicated on Exhibit A, the hearing dates for the first cause of action in a

forcible-entry-and-detainer actions, i.e., for restoration of the premises, have been set out from

59 to 83 days from the date of the filing of the complaint.

27. In contrast, a review of the website of the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts and the

scheduling of hearing dates for the first cause of action in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions,

i.e., for restoration of the premises, in January 2020 indicates such hearings are scheduled

generally from 15 to 18 days from the date of the filing of the complaint.

28. Setting a hearing on the first cause of action in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions,

i.e., for restoration of the premises, within 15 to 18 days is reasonable and consistent with the

-6-
intent and purpose of the forcible entry and detainer, as authorized in R.C. Chapter 1923, as well

as in requiring the use of forcible entry and detainer as the exclusive remedy by which a landlord

may obtain possession of residential rental property.

29. With the Hamilton County Municipal Court now setting hearings for the first cause

of action in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions, i.e., for restoration of the premises, up to 83 days

after the filing of the complaint (and assuming that date is not subsequently continued as has

happened recently in forcible-entry-and-detainer actions), the tenants are now enabled by the

Hamilton County Municipal Court to continue physical destruction to the leased premises and/or

to function as squatters, all with the tacit approval of the Hamilton County Municipal Court and

in derogation of the constitutional and statutory rights of landlords. Such action and omission by

the Hamilton County Municipal Court has effectively resulted in an unconstitutional taking of

the real property of landlords by the government.

30. Furthermore, a review of the docket on various forcible-entry-and-detainer actions

for which the first cause of action was scheduled for June 4, 2020, now includes a docket entry

on May 29, 2020, indicating that the case is being continued with no new date indicated for the

hearing on the first cause of action. Thus, there is no assurance that the setting of a hearing on

the first cause of action will actually occur on the date initially assigned even if it is scheduled 83

days out from the filing of the complaint.

31. Additionally, on June 1, 2020, an assistant clerk handling the filing of complaints in

forcible-entry-and-detainer actions in the Office of the Hamilton County Clerk of Court declared

to counsel herein that “evictions are on hold until further notice”.

32. The delay and failure of the Hamilton County Municipal Court to afford landlords,

including SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC, a summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for

-7-
the recovery of possession of their rental real estate has infringed upon the fundamental rights of

property of said landlords, including, without limitation, SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC.

33. At present, SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC, is a plaintiff in a forcible-entry-and-

detainer action pending in the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

34. On May 27, 2020, SALVADOR PROPERITES, LLC, filed a Complaint for

Eviction and Money against Carla Bradley and Jennifer Coburn with the Hamilton County

Municipal Court in a case styled Salvador Properties, LLC v. Bradley, and assigned Case No.

20-CV-09359.

35. The next day, i.e., May 28, 2020, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts issued a

summons to the defendants in the Salvador Properties Eviction Case wherein the court date or

hearing for the first cause of action, i.e., restoration of the premises, for July 28, 2020, i.e., 61

days later.

36. Setting the hearing date for the first cause of action in forcible-entry-and-detainer

actions, i.e., for restoration of the premises, 60 days out from the date of the filling of the

complaint is contrary to the purpose and intent of the forcible-entry-and-detainer action statutes,

as well as causes an on-going infringement of the fundamental property rights of landlords.

37. SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC, as a citizen in the State of Ohio, has the clear

legal right, both in its own right and in the public interest, to have the purpose and intent of the

forcible-entry-and-detainer statutes implemented by the Hamilton County Municipal Court, as

well as to have the courts open and justice administered without denial or delay and to protect

fundamental property rights in the State of Ohio. See State, ex rel. Nimon v. Village of

Springdale, 6 Ohio St.2d 1, 4, 215 N.E.2d 592 (1966)(“where the question is one of public right

and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of public duty, the people are

-8-
regarded as the real party and the relator need not show that he has any … special interest in the

result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen or taxpayer in having the laws

executed and the duty in question enforced”).

38. SALVADOR PROPERTIES, LLC “has a clear legal right to have his forcible entry

and detainer action proceed, and [Respondent and the judges of the Hamilton County Municipal

Court] have a corresponding clear legal duty to proceed. [Relator] lacks an adequate remedy in

the ordinary course of law. No alternate remedy will further the purpose behind forcible entry

and detainer, which is to provide a summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for the recovery

of possession of real estate.” State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 705 N.E.2d 1227,

1999-Ohio-422.

39. The delay in providing a summary, extraordinary, and speedy method for the

recovery of possession of real estate through a forcible-entry-and-detainer action is on-going and

systemic within the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

WHEREFORE, the State of Ohio, by and through the Relator, is entitled to the issuance

of a writ of mandamus in the nature of procedendo or a writ of procedendo directing and

compelling HEATHER S. RUSSELL, in her capacity as Presiding and Administrative Judge of

the Hamilton County Municipal Court, and all acting, assigned or sitting judges of the Hamilton

County Municipal Court, to proceed henceforth to judgment in a summary fashion in all forcible

entry and detainer proceedings pursuant to R.C. Chapter 1923 and, in particular, with respect to

the first cause of actions thereunder, i.e., the claim to restore immediate possession of leased

premises to the landlords, including, but not limited to, within the Salvador Properties Eviction

Case. See State ex rel GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Callahan, 45 Ohio St.3d 51, 55, 543 N.E.2d 483

(1989).

-9-
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Curt C. Hartman

Curt C. Hartman (0064242)
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman
7394 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8
Cincinnati, OH 45230
(513) 379-2923
[email protected]

Christopher P. Finney (0038998)

Rebecca Heimlich (0064004)
Finney Law Firm LLC
4270 Ivy Point Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
(513) 943-6655
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for
Relator Salvador Properties, LLC

- 10 -
 EXHIBIT A – LIST OF FORCIBLE ENTRY-AND-DETAINER ACTIONS
Hamilton County Municipal Court
21 May 2020 to 29 May 2020

Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
NICALJEN LLC D B A TWIN PINE
20CV09172 APARTMENTS vs. KEITH PERKINS G1 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
ANNIE MAY III LLC vs. LINDA
20CV09173 LATERA PARIS HARPER G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
GLADYS MAE ISON GARCIA vs.
CHARLENE KNOX DELORES
20CV09174 HOLLINGSWORTH DIAMOND KNO G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
NORWOOD INVESTMENT
PROPERTIES LLC vs. ALDONUSS
20CV09175 PLEASURE ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
PARKTOWN COOPERATIVE
20CV09180 HOMES INC vs. LINDA TOBIN G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
PARKTOWN COOPERATIVE
20CV09181 HOMES INC vs. ANGELA R TAYLOR G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
PARKTOWN COOPERATIVE
20CV09182 HOMES INC vs. FRANCES MOORE G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
PARKTOWN COOPERATIVE
20CV09183 HOMES INC vs. CRYSTAL FOSTER G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
PARKTOWN COOPERATIVE
20CV09184 HOMES INC vs. TONYA BYRD G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
JUSTIN HIGGINS vs. DAMAON
20CV09185 DEWALD G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
HUTCHINS ESTATES LLC vs. KEISHA
20CV09195 GREENE ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
STEPHANIE BAUTE vs. DENNIS
20CV09196 BACHELIER II G1 - Eviction 5/21/2020 8/10/2020 81 days
BANNC PROPERTIES LLC vs.
20CV09218 NICOLE KINNEY G2 - Eviction 5/21/2020 7/23/2020 63 days
DEISTER HOLDINGS LLC vs.
20CV09157 KATRINA SMITH G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
2906 SIDNEY AVENUE LLC vs.
20CV09217 DUSTIN E RITCHIE G1 - Eviction 5/22/2020 7/23/2020 62 days
ALEX BROOK BANK vs. CORINA
20CV09219 CUMMINGS G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 7/23/2020 62 days

- 12 -
 Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
N AMERICAN INVEST & MGMT LLC
20CV09220 vs. SCOTT MEFFORD G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 7/23/2020 62 days
WMC GROUP LLC vs. ANTONY J
20CV09221 BURNS G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 7/23/2020 62 days
WMC GROUP LLC vs. JAMES
20CV09222 SHEPPARD G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 7/23/2020 62 days
32 EAST DELAWARE LLC vs.
20CV09224 KIRKLANDS STORES INC et al G1 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
20CV09225 ES2 LLC vs. YAZEED ALWADEE G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
LEESBURG APARTMENTS LTD vs.
20CV09226 OLIVIA AMEND G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
LEESBURG APARTMENTS LTD vs.
20CV09227 ALLENE CARTER G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS INC
vs. ASIA HURT AND ALL OTHER
20CV09228 OCCUPANTS G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
PEDRETTI LLC AKA SUNRISE APTS
20CV09229 OF DELHI vs. LEASA WEBER G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
PEDRETTI LLC AKA SUNRISE APTS
OF DELHI vs. VERTIE JOHNSON ET
20CV09230 AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
MARGPROP2 OF OHIO LLC D B A
RAVI GOUTAM vs. VICTOR
20CV09231 SANCHEZ ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
VENTURA HILL LLC vs. JOHN
20CV09232 CANNON ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
I E PROPERTIES LLC vs. DIAMOND
20CV09233 HARRING ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
I E PROPERTIES LLC vs. AYONA
20CV09234 CHERRY ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/10/2020 80 days
A SONS LLC vs. TASHA FLEMING ET
20CV09235 AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
ASTRID RM LLC vs. CHRISTOPHER
20CV09236 CREECH ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
POWERFORD HOLDINGS LLC
YARON SALOMON vs. STEPHANIE
20CV09237 BACK ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
ALEXANDRA PALACCI vs. JVAON
20CV09238 IRVIN ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days

- 13 -
 Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
SRNI PROPERTIES LLC vs. TAUSHA
20CV09239 GIBBS ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
RIVKA MERON vs. KAMERO HURST
20CV09240 ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
TIRATI HOLDINGS LLC vs.
20CV09241 CHONTELL HUGHES ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
B O HORIZON PROPERTIES LLC vs.
20CV09242 CASEY JONES ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
20CV09243 IDO SEGEV vs. JAMES BENGE ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
NOI AVRAHAM vs. AFRIKA HOOD
20CV09244 ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GUY ELAZAR REAL ESTATE LLC vs.
20CV09245 ORLANDO SPIKES ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
YUVAL DOR INVESTMENTS LLC vs.
20CV09246 JAMIE FAHEY ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09247 GERALD NAPIER ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09248 YVONNE WATKINS ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09249 NICHOLAS ALLEN G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09250 MELISSA COOPER ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09251 TAAHVIYA CHAPMAN ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
GENESIS SILVER OAKS LLC vs.
20CV09252 LATISHA COLLINS ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
SHERRI HABEL vs. LARRY CAUDILL
20CV09286 et al G2 - Eviction 5/22/2020 8/13/2020 83 days
SFR 3 LLC vs. CONNIE SNEAD AND
20CV09253 ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 8/17/2020 83 days
REALFIN LLC vs. CHRISTOPHER
JONES AND ALL OTHER
20CV09254 OCCUPANTS G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 8/17/2020 83 days
REALFIN LLC vs. BRYAN HUDSON
20CV09255 AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 8/17/2020 83 days
GATED PROPERTIES VIII LLC vs.
20CV09287 IVETA SWAFFORD et al G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/24/2020 59 days
GATED PROPERTIES VIII LLC vs.
20CV09288 SHANISE BROOKS G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/24/2020 59 days

- 14 -
 Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
GATED PROPERTIES VIII LLC vs.
20CV09289 MARTEZ BUTLER G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/24/2020 59 days
GATED PROPERTIES VIII LLC vs.
20CV09290 FARRERI TURLEY G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/24/2020 59 days
GATED PROPERTIES VIII LLC vs.
20CV09291 IMAN RONNEY G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/24/2020 59 days
DAVID R MINIARD vs. SYLVIA
20CV09292 PRICE G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/27/2020 62 days
20CV09293 B & L CO vs. KELLIE BILBY et al G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/27/2020 62 days
BERGER PROPERTIES LLC vs.
20CV09294 SHANA GADOMSKI G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/27/2020 62 days
LARRY W LUCAS vs. ROBERT
20CV09295 RAINES et al G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 7/27/2020 62 days
GALACTIC UNION GROUP LLC vs.
20CV09307 WILLIAM HURTTE ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 8/11/2020 77 days
EREZ CAMUS DAFNA vs. JESSICA
20CV09308 JOHNSON ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/26/2020 8/13/2020 79 days
MARY VIDOUREK vs. IRAN
20CV09353 KUMANA-EVANS G1 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
DENNIS GILLESPIC vs. ALEX
20CV09354 PATTERSON et al G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
3250 HARVEY AVE LLC vs.
20CV09355 MATTHEW DAY G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
GLENHILLS PROPERTIES LP vs.
20CV09356 JOSEPH LUCKEY G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
GLENHILLS PROPERTIES LP vs.
20CV09357 BRANDI JEFFREYS G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
CEDAR HILL APTS LLC vs. TIMOTHY
20CV09358 REYNOLDS et al G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
SALVADOR PROPERTIES LLC vs.
20CV09359 CARLA BRADLEY et al G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
LUIS LEYTON APTS vs.
20CV09360 CHRISTOPHER WILSON G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
20CV09361 CLAY TURNER vs. ANDREA LAY G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
PHYLLIS BERRY HILL vs. DARLENE
20CV09362 CHAMBERS et al G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days
ELLIOTT REAL ESTATE LLC vs.
20CV09363 SARAH SUPER G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 7/28/2020 62 days

- 15 -
 Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
MONT MICHEL INVESTORS LLC D B
A MONT MICHEL APARTM vs.
20CV09375 CHRISTOPHER CRABTREE ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/13/2020 78 days
ISAAC F MILDRED A CURTIS vs.
20CV09376 WILLIAM MITCHELL ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/13/2020 78 days
BROOK APARTMENTS LLC vs.
20CV09377 DEMBA SARR ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/13/2020 78 days
TOWNE PROPERTIES vs. MAKAYLA
20CV09378 WARREN et al G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/11/2020 76 days
DERE PROPERTIES LLC vs.
MICHAEL MARSHALL SHARON
20CV09379 LEARY ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/13/2020 78 days
WALNUT CREEK LIMITED C O BRG
REALTY GROUP LLC vs. MISTY
20CV09380 SEYLHOUWER G1 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/12/2020 77 days
UPTOWN RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC
DBA 4TH PLUM LOFTS vs. DRAKAR
PARKER AKA DARRICK PARKER
20CV09381 AND KEVIN VARNUM G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/12/2020 77 days
JK FORESTVIEW LLC vs. PHILIP V
20CV09382 WILLAIMS G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/11/2020 76 days
JK FORESTVIEW LLC vs. ISSAC A
20CV09384 SWEENEY ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/11/2020 76 days
FOX RUN LIVING LLC vs.
20CV09385 RAYMOND LEE JONES G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/11/2020 76 days
FOX RUN LIVING LLC vs. REGINALD
20CV09386 W RITTER G2 - Eviction 5/27/2020 8/11/2020 76 days
DOYLE E KIRK vs. MEGAN LUCA ET
20CV09383 AL G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 8/13/2020 77 days
H E ENTERPRISE LLC vs. JAMAAL
20CV09387 BURGEST ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 8/13/2020 77 days
RONALD F ALICE R TAYLOR vs.
LINDSAY SCHMIDT JUSTIN GRAY
20CV09388 ET AL G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 8/13/2020 77 days
BLUE TIDE PARTNERS vs. LISE
20CV09411 PATTERSON G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 7/28/2020 61 days
BLUE TIDE PARTNERS vs.
20CV09412 MICHELLE SMITH G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 7/28/2020 61 days
KEVIN DELANEY vs. KELLY
20CV09413 MCSWAIN G1 - Eviction 5/28/2020 7/29/2020 62 days

- 16 -
 Date First
Case Time
Caption Class Date Filed Cause
Number Difference
Scheduled
ROBERT L MOONEY JR vs.
20CV09414 CHARLES PHYLYS WASHINGTON G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 7/29/2020 62 days
ARTEMIS INVESTING AND
CONSULTING LLC vs. RONNIE
20CV09422 TRENT G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 8/11/2020 75 days
JABARI JAY BLACKMOND vs.
20CV09423 CATHERINE SUMMERS G2 - Eviction 5/28/2020 8/11/2020 75 days

- 17 -