Hassan v. Askar Flash, L.L.C.

[Cite as Hassan v. Askar Flash, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-4486.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA YAHIA HASSAN, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 116215 v. : ASKAR FLASH, LLC, ET AL., : Defendants-Appellants. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 12, 2026 Civil Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Housing Division Case No. 2025-CVG-018806 Appearances: Shapero & Green LLC, Brian Green, and Ricky Cutlip, for appellee. Seeley, Savidge, Ebert & Gourash Co., L.P.A., Christopher M. Corrigan, and Matthew T. Waters, for appellants. MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J.: {¶ 1} Defendants-appellants Askar Flash, LLC (“Askar”) and Ashbury Food, LLC (“Ashbury”) (collectively referred to as “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s judgment entry finding in favor of plaintiff-appellee Yahia Hassan (“Hassan”) on his forcible entry-and-detainer action. Specifically, Appellants challenge the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision, alleging that the evidence did not support the magistrate’s decision and that the trial court erred in adopting a “corrected” version of the magistrate’s decision without providing an explanation for doing so. {¶ 2} After a thorough review of the law and record, we note that Appellants failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision as set forth in Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). As such, they have forfeited all but plain error on their arguments concerning the magistrate’s findings on appeal. Since Appellants fail to argue plain error with respect to the magistrate’s findings, we decline to address plain error and overrule the assignments of error challenging the magistrate’s findings. With respect to Appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s adoption of the “corrected” magistrate’s decision, we find that the trial court was not required to provide an explanation when it approved the “corrected magistrate’s decision” and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in failing to do so. {¶ 3} For these reasons, we overrule Appellants’ assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. Background Overview A. Complaint {¶ 4} On December 16, 2025, Hassan filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer in Cleveland Municipal Court against Askar and Ashbury. The complaint alleged that Hassan is the owner of the property located at 11025 Ashbury Ave., Cleveland, OH (the “premises”). Askar and Ashbury are Ohio limited liability companies registered in the State of Ohio, which have their respective principal place of business located at the premises. {¶ 5} On April 12, 2025, Hassan and Askar entered into a commercial lease agreement for the premises. The lease was subsequently assigned to Ashbury, which operates a convenience store at the premises. {¶ 6} On November 25, 2025, the complaint notes that Hassan served Appellants with a “3-day Notice to Vacate Premises,” which at the time of the filing of the complaint, the Appellants had not yet complied. The complaint requested an order from the trial court concerning “[a] writ of restitution of the premises” and “[a]n award of all reasonable attorney fees and court costs associated with this action.” B. Answer and Counterclaims {¶ 7} On January 5, 2026, Appellants filed an answer and counterclaim to the complaint. Appellants denied the allegations set forth in the complaint and claimed that (1) the complaint failed “to state a claim on which relief can be granted,” (2) “[Hassan] failed to provide [Appellants] with any Notice of Default relative to any alleged violations of the lease as is expressly required by the terms and conditions of the lease[,]” (3) Hassan failed to provide Appellants an opportunity to cure the alleged violations, and (4) even if Appellants had violated the conditions set forth in the lease, the violations had been cured prior to the filing of the complaint.  {¶ 8} The answer also raised several counterclaims against Hassan alleging vandalism and tortious interference. C. Hearing {¶ 9} On January 13, 2026, an eviction hearing was held before the magistrate. Prior to the presentation of evidence, Hassan’s attorney noted that the hearing would be limited to the issue of illegal activity occurring on the premises in violation of the lease agreement. {¶ 10} Hassan testified that he is the owner of the premises where Appellants operate their business pursuant to the lease. Hassan stated that the business has a C-1 alcohol license issued by the State of Ohio that only permits the sale of beer on the premises. He stated that the license is currently issued under his wife’s name but was currently in the process of being transferred and that any violations of the license could cause an issue with the pending transfer. {¶ 11} Hassan testified that on November 5, 2025, he observed vodka and wine products “for sale in the cooler.” He also saw bottles of Fireball and High Noons in the coolers. He explained that these products were not supposed to be sold at the premises “because they carry a high volume of alcohol or wine product in them.” He proceeded to take photographs of these products. Photographs of the display coolers containing these products were introduced at the hearing. {¶ 12} Hassan stated that he spoke to Muhammad Askar (“Muhammad”) and notified him that the sale of these products was illegal and that it could jeopardize the alcohol license. Hassan also advised them that his wife could be implicated since the license had not yet been transferred out of her name. {¶ 13} Hassan testified that even after notifying Appellants of this situation, the products remained at the premises. Hassan stated that when he returned to the premises the following week, on November 12, 2025, the products were still in the cooler but had been moved from the top shelf to the bottom shelf of the cooler. When he returned a few days later, on November 18, 2025, he observed that the products had been moved behind the counter. {¶ 14} Muhammad testified on behalf of the Appellants. Muhammad stated that he was aware that there was wine in the sales cooler on November 5, 2025, but the product was eventually placed at the bottom of the cooler by November 7, 2025. He testified that it was no longer on display but could still be seen in the cooler. Muhammad testified that on either November 18 or 19, 2025, he removed all of the products from the store. D. Judgment {¶ 15} On February 13, 2026, a magistrate’s decision titled “corrected magistrate’s decision,” which was signed by the magistrate, was filed on the docket.1 1 Appellants attached a copy of the initial magistrate’s decision, prior to the correction, to their merit brief, in which the magistrate recommended “[j]udgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s on its [sic] first cause of action.” This decision was not filed on the docket nor was it adopted, approved, or journalized by the trial court. It is therefore not a part of the record on appeal, and we may not consider it. State v. Westley, 2020-Ohio-809, ¶ 21, fn. 1 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that documents attached to a party’s merit brief cannot be considered “since those records were not part of the record on appeal”), citing State v. Jones, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 4659, *6-7 (8th Dist. Sept. 30, 1993). The decision was dated February 5, 2026, and recommended that judgment should be “for [Hassan] on [his] first cause of action.” The decision also included the following notice: Attention: A party may not assign as error on appeal any magistrate’s finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(d)(3)(b). All objections to the magistrate’s decision must be filed in writing within fourteen days of the journalization of this decision. Objections must be filed even if the trial court has provisionally adopted the magistrate’s decision before the fourteen days for filing objections has passed. Objections must comply with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, and the local rules of this court. For further information, consult the above rules or seek legal counsel. {¶ 16} On February 13, 2026, the trial court approved and confirmed the “corrected magistrate’s decision,” finding for Hassan on his first cause of action. {¶ 17} The record does not include any objections to the “corrected magistrate’s decision” by Appellants. D. Appeal {¶ 18} Appellants appealed the trial court’s decision adopting the corrected magistrate’s decision, presenting the following assignments of error for our review: 1. The trial court erred in finding in favor of [Hassan] on the first cause of action because Hassan did not prove each element of his claim against [Appellants] by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. The lower court erred in finding for in favor of Hassan on the first cause of action because [Appellants] proved that they had cured any alleged violation in accordance with the terms of the Lease Agreement. 3. The lower court erred in finding in favor of Hassan on the first cause of action because Hassan did not produce any evidence that Askar [had] engaged in illegal activity on the Premises.  4. The lower court erred in ruling for Hassan on the first cause of action because that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 5. The lower court erred by arbitrarily and without explanation issuing a Corrected Magistrate’s Decision in which the Magistrate, using the same findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate’s Decision, totally reversed the recommendation made in the Magistrate’s Decision. 6. The lower court erred in failing to conclude that Hassan did not prove that [Appellants] violated the Lease Agreement by a preponderance of the evidence because the evidence was equipoise. II. Law and Analysis A. First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Assignments of Error {¶ 19} In the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assigned errors for review, Appellants challenge the factual and legal conclusions set forth in the “corrected magistrate’s decision,” which was approved and confirmed by the trial court. However, Appellants failed to file objections to the “corrected magistrate’s decision” below and have therefore forfeited these challenges on appeal. {¶ 20} Civ.R. 53(D) governs proceedings in matters referred to magistrates. Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) “imposes an affirmative duty on parties to submit timely, specific, written objections to the trial court, identifying any error of fact or law in the magistrate's decision.” Dhillon v. Dhillon, 2024-Ohio-3022, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), citing Marrs v. Mickel, 2023-Ohio-4528, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lundeen, 2020-Ohio-28, ¶ 11. If a party fails to properly object to a magistrate’s decision in accordance with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), “it generally forfeits the right to assign those issues on appeal.” Id., citing Marrs at ¶ 12, citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Matthews, 2017-Ohio-4075, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). {¶ 21} The trial court approved the corrected magistrate’s decision on the same day it was filed. Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i) provides that a trial court may enter a judgment adopting a magistrate’s decision within the 14 days permitted for filing objections. If a party files a timely objection within those 14 days, the objections “shall operate as an automatic stay of execution of the judgment until the court disposes of those objections and vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). “Under this rule, the failure to file objections within the trailing 14-day period results in a final decision being rendered and effective.” Di Fiore v. Booker, 2022-Ohio-2586, ¶ 4 (8th Dist.), citing In re D.F., III, 2019-Ohio-3710, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.). If no objections are filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider any untimely objections. Id. {¶ 22} Here, Appellants failed to file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision; as such, they have forfeited all but plain error on appeal. See Ferrell v. Cole, 2024-Ohio-3305, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims, 2015-Ohio-2003, ¶ 11. In a civil case, plain error is limited to “‘those extremely rare cases where exceptional circumstances require its application to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and where the error complained of, if left uncorrected, would have a material adverse effect on the character of, and public confidence in, judicial proceedings.’” One Main Fin. Grp., L.L.C. v. Knight, 2026- Ohio-1660, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.), quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997). {¶ 23} Appellants have not argued, nor demonstrated, plain error occurred in this case. “This court need not analyze plain error when the appellant has failed to make a plain-error argument.” Marrs, 2023-Ohio-4528, at ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), citing Alcorso v. Correll, 2021-Ohio-3351, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.) (recognizing that “[a]s a general matter, this court will not sua sponte craft a plain error argument for an appellant who fails to do so”); O'Donnell v. N.E. Ohio Neighborhood Health Servs., 2020- Ohio-1609, ¶ 87 (8th Dist.) (“We need not, sua sponte, consider a claim of plain error that the appellant has not argued on appeal.”); Coleman v. Coleman, 2015-Ohio- 2500, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.) (declining to sua sponte “fashion” a plain error argument “and then address it”). {¶ 24} Even if we were to consider this issue, we would find no plain error here. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that this is not one of those “extremely rare cases” where a sua sponte plain-error analysis would be required to prevent a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” {¶ 25} Since Appellants failed to file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision below, they have forfeited all but plain error on appeal. And since Appellants have failed to argue plain error on appeal, we decline to sua sponte raise a plain-error analysis. Thus, Appellants’ first, second, third, fourth, and sixth assignments of error are overruled.  B. Fifth Assignment of Error {¶ 26} In their fifth assigned error for review, Appellants allege that the trial court abused its discretion in adopting a “corrected” version of the magistrate’s decision without offering an explanation as to why the initial magistrate’s decision was changed. 1. Standard of Review {¶ 27} We review a trial court’s decision whether to adopt a magistrate’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Bradley v. Bradley, 2021-Ohio-2514, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Flemco, L.L.C. v. 12307 St. Clair, Ltd., 2018-Ohio-588, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), citing Kapadia v. Kapadia, 2011-Ohio-2255, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.). “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ means a ruling that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. McAlpin, 2026-Ohio-148, ¶ 14. However, “[c]ourts do not have discretion to erroneously apply the law.” Shiftmed, L.L.C. v. Westchester Parkway Consulting, L.L.C., 2025-Ohio-1554, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio- 3304, ¶ 39. We are reminded that “when applying the abuse-of-discretion standard ‘we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.’” T.C. v. R.B.C., 2025-Ohio-1544, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), quoting Mills v. Mills, 2025-Ohio-452, ¶ 28 (8th Dist.). 2. Analysis {¶ 28} Appellants claim that the trial court initially adopted a magistrate’s decision that found in favor of the Appellants, only to then reverse its decision and adopt a “corrected magistrate’s decision” finding in favor of Hassan without providing any explanation as to why it did so. Appellants do not cite to any authority requiring a trial court to “explain” why it adopted a magistrate’s decision where neither party filed objections to the magistrate’s decision pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). {¶ 29} We begin by noting that the initial magistrate’s decision that is attached to Appellants’ merit brief is not part of this record on appeal. As such, we may not consider it. Westley, 2020-Ohio-809, at ¶ 21, fn. 1 (8th Dist.). {¶ 30} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c) provides that if no timely objections to the magistrate’s decision are filed, “the court may adopt a magistrate's decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision.” There is nothing in the rule which requires the trial court to explain its decision when no objections are filed, nor do Appellants cite to any authority requiring the trial court to explain its reasoning. Dancy v. Dancy, 2004- Ohio-470, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.) (stating that the appellant failed to “cite any authority to support her assertion that the trial court was required to give ‘an explanation’ of why it was adopting the magistrate’s findings”); see also Van Dress Law Offices Co., L.L.C. v. Dawson, 2017-Ohio-8062, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.) (noting that even in situations where the trial court overrules a party’s objections to a magistrate’s decision, “‘“the trial court is not required to ‘comment or reference’ any portion of the record in undertaking its independent review of the record”’”), quoting Millers v. Kasnett, 2015-Ohio-298, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), quoting Ernsberger v. Ernsberger, 2014-Ohio- 4470, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.).  {¶ 31} Here, the trial court was not required to give an explanation or provide detailed reasoning when it adopted the “corrected magistrate’s decision.” As such, its choice not to provide an explanation does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Thus, Appellants’ fifth assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 32} Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment entry adopting the magistrate’s decision. {¶ 33} Judgment affirmed. It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants 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 Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, 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. ______________________________________ MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and TIMOTHY W. CLARY, J., CONCUR