Jabr v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
Jabr
Citation
2025 Ohio 2693
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
July 31, 2025
Importance
34%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
[Cite as Jabr v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2025-Ohio-2693.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Tareq Jabr, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 25AP-155 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00797JD) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Ohio Department of Job and : Family Services et al., : Defendants-Appellees. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on July 31, 2025 On brief: Tareq Jabr, pro se. Argued: Tareq Jabr. On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Michelle C. Brizes, and Maggie Shaver, for appellees. Argued: Maggie Shaver. APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio PER CURIAM {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Tareq Jabr, appeals, pro se, from the December 31, 2024 judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio dismissing his complaint against defendants- appellees, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) and the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) (collectively, the “departments”), under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to specifically plead sufficient facts to support his fraud claim. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW {¶ 2} On November 12, 2024, Mr. Jabr initiated a civil action against ODJFS and ODM in the court of claims seeking damages and other relief. In his complaint, Mr. Jabr accused the departments of criminal stalking, harassment, forgery, and fraud in connection No. 25AP-155 2 with the completion of a Medicaid-benefits form, which he claims caused harm to him and his wife.1 {¶ 3} On December 12, 2024, the departments moved to dismiss Mr. Jabr’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court of claims granted that motion in a judgment dated December 31, 2024. {¶ 4} Mr. Jabr timely appealed from that judgment, and he assigns the following error: TAREQ JABR STATES IN THIS BRIEF,1ST OF ALL THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ARE THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS ,HAS FULL JURISDICTION,OVER THE STATE AND ITS WRONG DOINGS IN LAW , IT’S A COURT FOR THE STATE,AND STATE RUN AGENCYS. PROOF WAS GIVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, PLUS A SWORN AFFDAVIT,WHICH IS ATTACHED WITH THIS BRIEF,BY TAREQ JABR THE APPELLANT ,IN THIS CASE FOR,FURTHER PROOFS PLUS LOOK AT THE 21 PLEADINGS IN THE RECORD. THE COURT OF CLAIMS ,FALSELY AND ARTBITARY,ALSO BASISLY DISMISSED THE CASE ,WITHOUT DECIDEING,ON THE MERITS OF THIS SIGNATURE, FRAUDS,CASE BY THE DEFS, AND APPELLEES, THE OHIO DEPT, OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES,AND THE MEDICAID DEPT,AND THERE ATTORNEYS,YOUR HONORS OF THE COURT. (Sic passim.) II. LEGAL ANALYSIS {¶ 5} As an initial matter, we note that Mr. Jabr’s brief fails to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7). Under App.R. 12(A)(2), we are permitted to “disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on 1 In the body of his complaint, Mr. Jabr also identifies his spouse, Eman J. Jabr, as an injured party-plaintiff. But he did not name her as a party-plaintiff in the caption of the complaint, and Ms. Jabr did not sign the pleading. Furthermore, nothing in the record before us suggests that Mr. Jabr is an attorney authorized to practice law in Ohio. Although a party may act in a pro se capacity by representing himself in court without a lawyer, a non-lawyer is generally not allowed to represent another in a legal action. See R.C. 4705.01; Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 2005-Ohio-4104, ¶ 7; Lusk v. Crown Pointe Care Ctr., 2019-Ohio-1326, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.). Our analysis is thus confined to Mr. Jabr as the sole plaintiff in this case. No. 25AP-155 3 which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A).”
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 31, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
[Cite as Jabr v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2025-Ohio-2693.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Tareq Jabr, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 25AP-155
(Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00797JD)
v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Ohio Department of Job and : Family Services et al., : Defendants-Appellees. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on July 31, 2025
On brief: Tareq Jabr, pro se. Argued: Tareq Jabr.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Michelle C. Brizes,
and Maggie Shaver, for appellees. Argued: Maggie Shaver.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
PER CURIAM
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Tareq Jabr, appeals, pro se, from the December 31, 2024
judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio dismissing his complaint against defendants- appellees, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) and the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) (collectively, the “departments”), under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to specifically plead sufficient facts to support his fraud claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW {¶ 2} On November 12, 2024, Mr. Jabr initiated a civil action against ODJFS and ODM in the court of claims seeking damages and other relief. In his complaint, Mr. Jabr accused the departments of criminal stalking, harassment, forgery, and fraud in connection No. 25AP-155 2
with the completion of a Medicaid-benefits form, which he claims caused harm to him and his wife.1 {¶ 3} On December 12, 2024, the departments moved to dismiss Mr. Jabr’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court of claims granted that motion in a judgment dated December 31, 2024. {¶ 4} Mr. Jabr timely appealed from that judgment, and he assigns the following error:
TAREQ JABR STATES IN THIS BRIEF,1ST OF ALL THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ARE THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS ,HAS FULL JURISDICTION,OVER THE STATE
AND ITS WRONG DOINGS IN LAW , IT’S A COURT FOR THE
STATE,AND STATE RUN AGENCYS.
PROOF WAS GIVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, PLUS A SWORN
AFFDAVIT,WHICH IS ATTACHED WITH THIS BRIEF,BY
TAREQ JABR THE APPELLANT ,IN THIS CASE
FOR,FURTHER PROOFS PLUS LOOK AT THE 21
PLEADINGS IN THE RECORD. THE COURT OF CLAIMS
,FALSELY AND ARTBITARY,ALSO BASISLY DISMISSED
THE CASE ,WITHOUT DECIDEING,ON THE MERITS OF
THIS SIGNATURE, FRAUDS,CASE BY THE DEFS, AND
APPELLEES, THE OHIO DEPT, OF JOB AND FAMILY
SERVICES,AND THE MEDICAID DEPT,AND THERE
ATTORNEYS,YOUR HONORS OF THE COURT.
(Sic passim.)
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS {¶ 5} As an initial matter, we note that Mr. Jabr’s brief fails to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7). Under App.R. 12(A)(2), we are permitted to “disregard an assignment of error presented for review if the party raising it fails to identify in the record the error on
1 In the body of his complaint, Mr. Jabr also identifies his spouse, Eman J. Jabr, as an injured party-plaintiff.
But he did not name her as a party-plaintiff in the caption of the complaint, and Ms. Jabr did not sign the pleading. Furthermore, nothing in the record before us suggests that Mr. Jabr is an attorney authorized to practice law in Ohio. Although a party may act in a pro se capacity by representing himself in court without a lawyer, a non-lawyer is generally not allowed to represent another in a legal action. See R.C. 4705.01; Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 2005-Ohio-4104, ¶ 7; Lusk v. Crown Pointe Care Ctr., 2019-Ohio-1326, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.). Our analysis is thus confined to Mr. Jabr as the sole plaintiff in this case. No. 25AP-155 3
which the assignment of error is based or fails to argue the assignment separately in the brief, as required under App.R. 16(A).”
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 31, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools