The Ninth District Court of Appeals in Ohio has affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss Mark Campolo’s lawsuit against Jeffrey Przytulski—doing business as Prime Asset Equity—with prejudice. The dismissal was imposed as a sanction after Mr. Campolo repeatedly failed to comply with court-ordered discovery requests in his civil case alleging securities violations, breach of contract, and fraud.
The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Mr. Campolo by dismissing his entire case, concluding that Mr. Campolo had sufficient warning about the potential consequences of his non-compliance.
The Road to Dismissal: A History of Missed Deadlines
Mr. Campolo originally filed his complaint in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in 2023, seeking rescission of an investment he claimed resulted from fraudulent activity, along with compensatory and punitive damages. He alleged that Mr. Przytulski defrauded him out of $85,000.
The case initially moved forward, with both parties filing cross-motions for summary judgment in June 2024. However, the trial court denied both motions, determining there were genuine issues of material fact that required further investigation through the discovery process.
Following this denial, the trial court set firm deadlines: fact discovery was to be completed by September 30, 2024, with expert discovery due by November 29, 2024.
The record shows Mr. Campolo struggled to meet these timelines. After initial extensions were granted, Mr. Przytulski was forced to file motions to compel Mr. Campolo to respond to discovery requests served back in August 2024.
The Final Warning
The situation escalated in early 2025. On February 4, 2025, the trial court granted Mr. Przytulski’s renewed motion to compel. Crucially, the court ordered Mr. Campolo to finally respond by March 7, 2025, and explicitly warned that “Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions under Civ.R. 37(B), including a dismissal of the action.”
Mr. Campolo claims he served answers on March 5, 2025. However, Mr. Przytulski immediately moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the responses were “woefully inadequate,” only promising future supplementation at an unspecified time.
Just over a month later, on April 10, 2025, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard
On appeal, Mr. Campolo argued that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion because he had, in fact, provided responses in good faith. He contended that the dismissal violated his rights, particularly under Article I, Section 10A of the Ohio Constitution, suggesting that because he was a victim of a crime, the court could not sanction him this severely while criminal investigations against the defendants were ongoing.
The appellate court, guided by Judge Hensal, reviewed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions. Ohio law grants trial courts broad discretion when imposing discovery sanctions under Civil Rule 37(B). Reversal is typically only appropriate if that discretion was abused.
The court emphasized that for a dismissal with prejudice to serve as a discovery sanction, the non-complying party must have adequate notice that dismissal is a possibility and a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency.
The Ninth District found that Mr. Campolo had ample warning. First, Mr. Przytulski’s motion to compel included a request for dismissal as an alternative sanction. Second, and more definitively, the trial court’s specific order of February 4, 2025, directly mentioned dismissal as a potential consequence of continued non-compliance.
“In these circumstances, the notice requirement… was satisfied because Mr. Campolo had notice ‘that the action [was] actually in jeopardy of being dismissed’ and had ‘a corresponding opportunity to explain or cure the deficiency,’” the appellate court noted.
Trial Court’s Rationale Upheld
The appellate court then examined whether the *severity* of the sanction—dismissal—was appropriate given the conduct. The trial court’s reasoning, detailed in its order, focused on Mr. Campolo’s consistent failure to meet deadlines and his lack of proactive effort to resolve the discovery issues, even after extensions were granted.
The trial judge stated that after 20 months, the defendant had still not seen the necessary information, concluding that the situation warranted a severe sanction due to Mr. Campolo’s “severe contumaciousness.”
Mr. Campolo’s appeal brief largely reiterated the allegations from his original complaint, which the appellate court deemed insufficient justification for ignoring discovery orders. Furthermore, the appellate court noted that Mr. Campolo referenced documents, like a “Book of Evidence,” that were not actually part of the official court record, limiting what the appellate court could consider.
Regarding the argument that his status as a crime victim shielded him from sanctions (invoking Marsy’s Law), the appellate court dismissed this, stating Mr. Campolo “has not developed an argument in support of this assertion.”
Ultimately, the Ninth District concluded that the trial court carefully weighed the circumstances and selected the most appropriate sanction based on the history of non-compliance. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed, meaning Mr. Campolo loses his right to refile this specific action. Costs of the appeal were taxed to Mr. Campolo.