the transaction.” Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02. Plaintiffs contend that the facts of this case warrant separate violations of the OCSPA. 1. Whether the OCSPA Applies As a preliminary matter, all De 06, at *1 (Ohio Ct.App. 8th Dist. Nov. 21,1991) (same). In this case, both Defendants are non-physicians. Plaintiffs do not seek relief here from any physician, as that term is contemplated by the OCSPA Therefore, neither Defendant can assert the physician exemption successfully. Next, Dickerson claims, without much explanation, that the OCSPA does not apply to her because she is not a “supplier” under the statute. Ohio courts have found repeatedly that the OCSPA governs defendants like D.B.S. and Dickerson. See Celebrezze v. United Research, Inc., 19 Ohio App.3d 49, 482 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Scandinavian
holding that petitions filed by affiliated debtors who were no longer operating were filed in bad faith primarily as a litigation tactic to protect the debtors parent and not designed to maximize the value of the estates holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding that a collection agency who filed suit against debtors is a supplier holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors