The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a default judgment against Ami Vitori in a case concerning unpaid wages and asset transfers. The court ruled that Vitori's failure to comply with discovery orders justified the trial court's decision. This ruling affects Vitori, who is now liable for a judgment of $54,730.12, plus interest and attorney fees, owed to Erica Collins.
The case, Collins v. Vitori, was filed in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas and later appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals under docket number CA2025-12-114. The court's decision, issued on September 14, 2026, emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so.
Erica Collins and Ami Vitori are the main parties in this case. Collins was employed by Vitori's business, Haven, L.L.C., which Vitori owned and operated until a dispute arose regarding Collins' unpaid wages. After Collins filed a lawsuit against Haven in 2019 to recover her wages, the court ruled in her favor in 2023, ordering Haven to pay her $54,730.12. However, Haven later filed for bankruptcy and did not pay the judgment. In 2024, Collins filed a new complaint against Vitori, alleging that Vitori was personally liable for the debts of Haven due to asset transfers that occurred after Haven became insolvent.
The dispute escalated when Vitori failed to comply with discovery requests made by Collins. Despite agreeing to a timeline for discovery, Vitori did not provide the necessary information, prompting Collins to file a motion to compel. The trial court granted this motion, but Vitori continued to resist compliance. Ultimately, the court warned Vitori that failure to comply could result in severe sanctions, including a default judgment.
On September 4, 2025, a hearing was held to address Vitori's noncompliance. The magistrate found that Vitori had not complied with the court's orders and issued a decision striking her answer to Collins' complaint. The magistrate granted default judgment in favor of Collins, which included the original judgment amount and additional attorney fees. Vitori objected to this decision, claiming it was an overreach, but the trial court upheld the magistrate's ruling.
In its opinion, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Hendrickson, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court stated, "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Vitori's conduct constituted an unjustified, willful, or flagrant abuse of discovery." The court emphasized that Vitori had multiple opportunities to comply with the discovery orders and failed to do so, indicating a pattern of delay and noncompliance.
This ruling has significant implications for Vitori, who is now responsible for the judgment amount as well as additional attorney fees. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of failing to do so. The case highlights how courts can impose strict sanctions, including default judgments, when parties do not comply with discovery obligations.
Moving forward, Vitori has limited options for appeal. The court's ruling is final unless new grounds for appeal arise or if there are related cases pending. Collins' victory in this case may also influence similar disputes involving unpaid wages and asset transfers in the future.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any further actions Vitori might take. However, the court's decision sets a precedent for how courts may handle cases involving noncompliance with discovery orders and the imposition of sanctions.