Everest Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Willo Security, 2007-Ca-00352 (9-2-2008)

{¶ 17} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as it reads Gov. Bar R. I (9) (H) too narrowly and as a result, unduly prejudices a plaintiffs absolute right to file for dismissal under Civ. R. 41(1)(a).Olynyk v. Scoles, 114 Ohio St.3d 56, 868 N.E.2d 254, 2007-Ohio-2878, ¶ 26, (a Civ. R. 41(A)(1)(a) dismissal is totally within a plaintiffs control).

{¶ 18} There is no dispute that the Lake County Court of Common Pleas properly granted pro hac vice admission to the plaintiffs out-of-state counsel. The majority opinion fails to recognize that when the Stark County Court of Common Pleas…