In Shields v. Englewood, 172 Ohio App.3d 620, 2007 Ohio 3165, 876 N.E.2d 972, the Paintiff's attorneys admitted to the court "that they had misrepresented the reason for the witnesses' failure to attend the prior hearing, conceding that his failure to appear was due to their failure to serve the subpoena at his proper address." Id. at P8. In response, the Defendant moved for sanctions for frivolous conduct. Nine days later, the court issued the following order: "The Motion for Sanctions filed herein by the Defendant on June 21, 2005 will be submitted for decision on July 15, 2005 as of 1:00 p.m. No oral hearing will be conducted unless requested by any party and approved by the Court in which event a definite date and time will be set. "All memoranda and/or affidavits either in support of or in opposition to the motion must be filed by July 7, 2005, with Replies due on or before July 14, 2005, with a copy delivered to the Court not later than twenty-four hours prior to the aforesaid date and time for submission unless the Court, upon oral or written request, grants an extension." Neither party in Shields requested an evidentiary hearing within the court's time frame on the issue of frivolity. The court granted the Defendant's motion for sanctions, and after holding a subsequent hearing to determine the sanction amount, awarded the Defendant $ 4,392.50. Id. at P9. The Second District Court of Appeals of Ohio found that under the limited circumstances of the facts in the Shields case, the court conducted a non-oral hearing on the matters submitted regarding "the issue of whether there was a prima facie showing of frivolous conduct warranting a subsequent hearing on the sanction to be imposed," thus satisfying R.C. 2323.51(B)(2)(a),(b) and (c). Shields at P631.