Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.

Dismissal of complaint; failure to comply with Civ.R. 10(D); failure to attach written contract with allegation of breach of written contract; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); mere allegation that there was a written contract does not present a claim for breach of written contract; statute of limitations for torts and for breach of oral contract expired; judgment affirmed.

Constitutional Issues

Due Process (implied, regarding notice of appeal requirements)

Rule Statements

"The purpose of R.C. 4123.512 is to provide a clear and orderly process for appealing decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Appeals."

"A notice of appeal must be filed within the statutory time limits and must contain the information required by law to be legally sufficient."

Q: What is Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. about?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on April 23, 2026.

Q: What court decided Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. decided?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. was decided on April 23, 2026.

Q: Who were the judges in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The judge in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.: Waite.

Q: What is the citation for Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The citation for Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. is 2026 Ohio 1484. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the case name and what does it concern?

The case is Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. It concerns a dispute where the plaintiff, Cicoretti, sued A&M Total Restoration for breach of contract and fraud related to restoration services that were allegedly not completed as agreed and were misrepresented.

Q: Who were the parties involved in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The parties involved were the plaintiff, Cicoretti, who initiated the lawsuit, and the defendant, A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C., the company providing the restoration services.

Q: Which court decided the Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. case?

The case was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which reviewed the decision of the trial court.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the trial court level?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C., meaning it found no genuine dispute of material fact and ruled in favor of the defendant without a full trial.

Q: What was the main legal issue on appeal in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The main legal issue on appeal was whether Cicoretti presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact to overcome A&M Total Restoration's motion for summary judgment on claims of breach of contract and fraud.

Q: What did the appellate court decide regarding the trial court's ruling?

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that Cicoretti failed to present adequate evidence to support her claims and thus upholding the summary judgment in favor of A&M Total Restoration.

Q: Is Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. published?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.. Key holdings: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the breach of contract claim.; The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant failed to perform its contractual obligations, as the evidence showed the defendant did perform work and the plaintiff's dissatisfaction did not equate to a breach.; The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the fraud claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a false representation made by the defendant with the intent to mislead, upon which the plaintiff relied to their detriment.; The court determined that the plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentation were conclusory and not supported by specific facts demonstrating the defendant's intent to deceive or the plaintiff's justifiable reliance.; The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were based on subjective dissatisfaction with the work performed rather than objective evidence of non-performance or fraudulent conduct..

Q: Why is Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. important?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This case reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs to overcome summary judgment in contract and fraud disputes, particularly when alleging misrepresentation. It highlights the need for concrete evidence of intent and reliance, rather than subjective dissatisfaction, to proceed to trial. Parties involved in similar disputes should ensure their claims are supported by specific factual evidence.

Q: What precedent does Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. set?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the breach of contract claim. (2) The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant failed to perform its contractual obligations, as the evidence showed the defendant did perform work and the plaintiff's dissatisfaction did not equate to a breach. (3) The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the fraud claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a false representation made by the defendant with the intent to mislead, upon which the plaintiff relied to their detriment. (4) The court determined that the plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentation were conclusory and not supported by specific facts demonstrating the defendant's intent to deceive or the plaintiff's justifiable reliance. (5) The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were based on subjective dissatisfaction with the work performed rather than objective evidence of non-performance or fraudulent conduct.

Q: What are the key holdings in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

1. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the breach of contract claim. 2. The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defendant failed to perform its contractual obligations, as the evidence showed the defendant did perform work and the plaintiff's dissatisfaction did not equate to a breach. 3. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the fraud claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a false representation made by the defendant with the intent to mislead, upon which the plaintiff relied to their detriment. 4. The court determined that the plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentation were conclusory and not supported by specific facts demonstrating the defendant's intent to deceive or the plaintiff's justifiable reliance. 5. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were based on subjective dissatisfaction with the work performed rather than objective evidence of non-performance or fraudulent conduct.

Q: What cases are related to Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

Precedent cases cited or related to Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.: Civ. R. 56(C); Ohio R. Evid. 401; Ohio R. Evid. 402.

Q: What legal standard did the appellate court apply when reviewing the summary judgment?

The appellate court applied the de novo standard of review, meaning it reviewed the case anew, without deference to the trial court's legal conclusions, to determine if summary judgment was appropriate.

Q: What evidence was Cicoretti required to present to avoid summary judgment on her breach of contract claim?

To avoid summary judgment on breach of contract, Cicoretti needed to present evidence showing a material breach by A&M Total Restoration, such as failure to complete agreed-upon work or performing it defectively, and that this breach caused her damages.

Q: What did the court find regarding Cicoretti's evidence of breach of contract?

The court found that Cicoretti did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a material breach of contract by A&M Total Restoration, failing to establish specific instances of non-performance or defective work that would justify her claims.

Q: What are the elements of a fraud claim in Ohio, as relevant to this case?

To prove fraud, Cicoretti would generally need to show a false representation of a material fact, knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages.

Q: What specific misrepresentations did Cicoretti allege against A&M Total Restoration?

Cicoretti alleged that A&M Total Restoration misrepresented its services and ability to complete the restoration work as agreed, implying these misrepresentations were made to induce her to enter into the contract.

Q: Why did the court find Cicoretti's fraud claim insufficient?

The court found Cicoretti's fraud claim insufficient because she failed to provide specific evidence of the alleged misrepresentations or demonstrate how she justifiably relied on them to her detriment.

Q: What does it mean for a fact to be 'material' in the context of summary judgment?

A 'material' fact is one that could affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. If a fact is material, its truth or falsity must be determined by a jury, preventing summary judgment.

Q: What is the purpose of summary judgment?

Summary judgment is a procedural tool used to resolve cases efficiently by determining if there are any genuine disputes of material fact that require a trial. If not, the court can enter judgment for one party.

Q: Did the court consider any specific statutes in its decision?

While the opinion doesn't explicitly cite specific statutes for breach of contract or fraud, it applies established common law principles governing these claims in Ohio, which are often codified or influenced by statutory law.

Q: What is the burden of proof for a party opposing summary judgment?

The party opposing summary judgment, in this case Cicoretti, bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of their claims, demonstrating that a trial is necessary.

Q: How does Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. affect me?

This case reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs to overcome summary judgment in contract and fraud disputes, particularly when alleging misrepresentation. It highlights the need for concrete evidence of intent and reliance, rather than subjective dissatisfaction, to proceed to trial. Parties involved in similar disputes should ensure their claims are supported by specific factual evidence. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the real-world impact of this decision for consumers hiring restoration companies?

This decision highlights the importance for consumers to meticulously document all agreements, communications, and any perceived shortcomings with restoration companies. Consumers must gather specific evidence of breach or misrepresentation to pursue legal action successfully.

Q: How does this ruling affect businesses like A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

For businesses, this ruling reinforces the value of clear contracts, accurate representations, and thorough documentation of services rendered. It suggests that well-supported summary judgment motions can be effective in defending against claims lacking concrete evidence.

Q: What should a consumer do if they believe a restoration company has breached a contract?

A consumer should gather all relevant documents, including the contract, invoices, and correspondence, and document specific instances of non-performance or defective work. Consulting with an attorney to assess the strength of the evidence is advisable before filing suit.

Q: What are the implications for future breach of contract and fraud cases in Ohio involving service providers?

This case suggests that Ohio courts will continue to require concrete evidence to support claims of breach of contract and fraud, particularly when a defendant moves for summary judgment. Vague allegations or general dissatisfaction are unlikely to suffice.

Q: What is the significance of this case in the context of Ohio contract law?

Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. reinforces the principle that parties must provide specific evidence to prove their claims in court. It underscores the application of common law contract principles and the requirements for overcoming summary judgment.

Q: How does this case compare to other Ohio cases involving consumer disputes with service providers?

This case aligns with a general trend in Ohio jurisprudence where courts require tangible proof of wrongdoing. Similar cases often turn on whether the plaintiff can demonstrate specific failures to perform or deceptive practices, rather than mere dissatisfaction.

Q: What was the docket number in Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C.?

The docket number for Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. is 25 MA 0100. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Cicoretti v. A&M Total Restoration, L.L.C. be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What procedural steps led to the Ohio Court of Appeals reviewing this case?

The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after Cicoretti appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of A&M Total Restoration. The appeal focused on whether the trial court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact.

Q: What is the role of a summary judgment motion in the litigation process?

A summary judgment motion is filed by a party arguing that no trial is necessary because there are no material facts in dispute. It allows for early resolution of cases where the evidence, viewed favorably to the non-moving party, still does not support their claim.

Q: What does it mean for the appellate court to 'affirm' the trial court's decision?

To affirm means the appellate court agreed with the trial court's ruling and upheld its decision. In this instance, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to A&M Total Restoration.

Ohio Court of Appeals Opinions Breach of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationSummary Judgment StandardSufficiency of EvidenceElements of Fraud oh Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Breach of ContractKnow Your Rights: Fraudulent MisrepresentationKnow Your Rights: Summary Judgment Standard Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Breach of Contract GuideFraudulent Misrepresentation Guide Summary Judgment (Legal Term)Burden of Proof in Civil Litigation (Legal Term)Elements of Breach of Contract (Legal Term)Elements of Fraud (Legal Term) Breach of Contract Topic HubFraudulent Misrepresentation Topic HubSummary Judgment Standard Topic Hub