On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, a complaint for writ of prohibition and mandamus was filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio against Judge Melba D. Marsh of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint, brought by Allentown Dental Group LP, Bright Choice Dental LLC, KSB Dental LLC, and Dr. Karandeep S. Brar, seeks to prevent Judge Marsh from enforcing a cognovit judgment entered in favor of Fifth Third Bank.
The relators, all residents and entities based in Pennsylvania, argue that Judge Marsh lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. They contend that the cognovit notes, which authorized the confession of judgment, were signed in Pennsylvania and not in Ohio, thus not meeting the requirements for Ohio courts to exercise jurisdiction over such matters as outlined in Ohio Revised Code 2323.13(A).
According to the complaint, Dr. Brar’s dental practice obtained three $100,000 revolving lines of credit from Fifth Third Bank in April 2022. These loans were secured through the three business entities, with Dr. Brar providing personal guarantees. The relators maintained a consistent payment record for two and a half years. However, Fifth Third Bank, citing alleged technical defaults, demanded immediate repayment of the loans.
On September 5, 2025, Fifth Third Bank filed a cognovit complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, falsely claiming that Dr. Brar and his businesses were Ohio residents. Judge Marsh entered a judgment the same day, awarding Fifth Third the right to collect over $300,000, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees.
Following the judgment, Fifth Third seized approximately $47,000 from the relators’ accounts held at Fifth Third and initiated garnishment proceedings to freeze and garnish accounts at other financial institutions, including a JPMorgan Chase account containing approximately $20,000. These actions, according to the complaint, have had a severe impact on Dr. Brar’s dental practice, causing payroll disruptions and hindering the ability to cover operational expenses.
The relators sought emergency relief from the trial court, requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt further enforcement of the cognovit judgment. During an October 1, 2025, hearing, Judge Marsh reportedly indicated a leaning towards Fifth Third’s position, advising the relators’ counsel to “know where you sit.” The trial court denied the motion for emergency relief.
Subsequently, the relators filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay from the First District Court of Appeals, which was also denied. The appeal is currently pending, with the appellate court requesting briefing on the issue of appellate jurisdiction due to a pending request for attorney’s fees filed by Fifth Third in the trial court.
The complaint filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Marsh from further exercising jurisdiction in the case and a writ of mandamus to compel her to correct the actions taken without subject-matter jurisdiction.
The relators argue that the trial court’s actions are causing irreparable harm to their business and professional reputation. They also contend that the trial court is statutorily prohibited from considering objections to the judgment itself during the garnishment hearing.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
