IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSISK ASSOCIATES INCAppelleeasTHE COMMITTEE - PDF document

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSISK& ASSOCI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOSISK& ASSOCIATES, INC.,Appellee,as.THE COMMITTEETO ELECTTIMOTHY GRENDELL, et al.;Appellants.CASE NO. 08-1265On appeal from the TenthJolm P.Slagter(0055513)Buckingham,Doolittle & Butroughs, LLPStreet,Suite 1700Facsimile:(216) 621-5440E-mail:jslagter@bdblaw.comAttorneys foi AppellantsPacsimile: (614) 396-0130... _ .-,... i3'CLG(dK QF Ct]11P"(Si1^'RHME COURT OHIO TABLE OF CONTENTSARGUMENT.. ..A. Ohio CivilRule3(A) requiresservice of'Appellee'sRefiledComplaintits filing ....

2 .............: ........ ... .B.. Appella
.............: ........ ... .B.. Appellants' Filing of' a Leave to Plead Did Not Submit Appellants to11214CivilRule3(A)...__ .... . ......... .... 15CONCLIISION 1511 TABLE OF AUTHORTT'TES.CasesBell v MidwesternEducational Services,Inc(Montgomery Ct. 1993), 89 Oluo App 3d 193,., .Blountv SchindlerElevator Corporation,(Apti124, 2003), Franklin App No. 02AP-688, 2003-.,...., - .,- ,,.,. .. ................ ... ....... _............,....... ..... .. . .. .....^...............Carter v.Cityof Lorain(9th

3 Dist.. No.. 04CA008537), 2005-Ohio-2564,
Dist.. No.. 04CA008537), 2005-Ohio-2564, ¶11.. .,.,,...._. ,. ..: ..14Fetterolf v.. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc.(11th Dist. 1994), 104 Ohio App...3d 272, 277 ...1, 3, 7, 8, 15Fir st Bank of Mar ietta v Cline(1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 317, 466 N.E.. 2d 567 ...,. .... ..... .. .. 10GoolsUy v. Anderson C'oncrete Corp.(1991), 61 Ohio st. 3d 549 .... ... .. ... . .. .. ... . ..... .. .. ..12, 16Graham v. Audio Clinic et al(3d Dist. No.. 5-04-35), 2005- Ohio-1088,1[3 .3 4Maryhew v. Yova,11 Ohio St. 3d 154, 464 N.E.

4 , 2d 538... ,,... __ _... ..., __.......
, 2d 538... ,,... __ _... ..., __........ _,.. ... ., _. _. 9, 10Matthetiv v. Doe(1996) 12" Dist., 116 Ohio App. 3d 61 . 3Olynyk v Scoles(2007) 114 Ohio St. 3d 64.. ... .. . 6, 13, lb, 17Piccuito v. Lucas County Board of Commissioners(Lucas Cty., 1990), 69 Ohio App. 3d 788, 799S'aunders v Choi(1984), 12 Ohio St, 3d 247, 250, 466 N.E. 2d 889, 892 ._ .l, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15Shafer v SunsportsCo, Inc(10°' Dist Nos- 06AP-370, 06AP-4841), 2006-Ohio-6002 1114-15..6,7,12,13,14,16Sisk & Associatesv_ The C

5 ommittee to Elect Tiinothy Grendell,10th
ommittee to Elect Tiinothy Grendell,10th Dist No_ 07AP-1002, 2008-. 12Thomas v Freeman(1997), 79 Ohio St 3d 221 .__., 13, 14Other AuthoritiesFranklin County Common Pleas Decision (September 13, 2007)Civil Rule 12..... _ .. . _ .. _, ., .. . . 10Civil Rule 12(B) ... .._ . .. .. ..... . . .. .. _. ... ., _ .. ,. .. ... ._.. .... ... _ 13Civil Rule 12(B)(2)...,.. .. .. „ .. ... _ . .. .. ... .. . .. ..... ... .. ._.. _, 7, 13, 14iii Civil Rule 3(A) ..: ...Civil Rule 4.....Civil Rule 4(E) ...... ..Civi

6 lRtde41(A)(2) _.,..._...Civil Rule 41(B)
lRtde41(A)(2) _.,..._...Civil Rule 41(B) ... . . ..Civil Rule 6(B),Civil Rule 60(B).1.1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,1714105, 91,12,13,14,16213iv4 INTRODUCTIONbelow had no authority to extend Civil Rule 3(A) in this case as it attempted to do in its March 1,' Civ.R. 3(A); Saunders v. C.hoi(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 247, 250, 466 N.E.2d 889, 892.2 Id Civ R 3(A);Saunders v Chor(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 247, 250, 466 N E 2d 889, 892R. 3(A); Saundei sv.Choi(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 247, 250, 466 N E 2d 889, 8926

7 Felterolf v Hoffinan-Z.aRoche, Inc(11V'
Felterolf v Hoffinan-Z.aRoche, Inc(11V' Dist. 1994), 104 Ohio App 3d 272, 277I Appellee at page 1 of'its Merit Brief; voluntarily dismissed its tmserved Complaint pursuant tonever xefused service or acted in bad faith in this mattex.. As demonstrated by Irial DocketTlierefore, as discussed in Appellants' Merit 13rief, Appellee's failuie to perfect service in' See Appellee's Merit Brief at page 1.Id2 othciwise would be contraty to the Ohio Civil Rules and would be prejudicial to good order andwas a

8 jutisdictional perequisite 12 No extens
jutisdictional perequisite 12 No extension of the one-year setvicc period could be granted" Over two years"Saunders v Choi(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 247, 250, 466 N E_ 2d 889, 892° Matthew vDoe (1996) 12' Dist., 116 Ohio App. 3d 6115Fettelo4(v Aoffman-LaRoche, Inc.(I1°iDist 1994), 104OhioApp.3d272,277Bell v Midwestern EducationalServices,Inc(Montgomery Ct. 1993), 89 Ohio App. 3d 193, 2002-033 CORRECTIONS'1'O APPELLEE'S STA'I'EMENT OFthen distnissed the Complaint.18 On Octobet 19, 2005, Appellee le-file

9 d its second action forp Appellee cites
d its second action forp Appellee cites to "Record DocumcnP'.. 33 as suppott for Itis assertion that document is a brief Trial Docketcopyattached at Appendix page 14 of19 Id was a substitute fbr actual service of process under Civil Rule 4. Grendell, the Committee, andof'process under Civil Rule 4'-r Appellee requested service by ordinary rnail, which was inappropriate because Appellee had not attemptedCiv R 4 6(C).22 See Appendix A-3 attached to Appellee's Merit Brief5 raised the failure to proper

10 ly serve issue in its pending motions Mo
ly serve issue in its pending motions Moreover, neither Appellantsnot even mention.JudgeCrawford..Z5As admitted by Appellee in its Merit Brief; the tmdisputed fact remains: Appellee failedOlynyk v Scoles26 The Court of Appeals erroneously af'frrmedwithpre,judice instead ofwithoutprejudice It is undisputed that Appellee voluntarilyShafer v Sunsports Co., Inc2J Sauaders v C,hor,supra." I here is rio evidence in the record as to )udge Crawford's motivations However, the record clearly denionstratesZ'

11 See Appendix A-l/A-2 attached to Appelle
See Appendix A-l/A-2 attached to Appellee's Merit Brief6 27, Appellee's request for sexvice of the Aniended Complaint constituted its second (and last)Shaferand held that Appellee's claims are subjectto ies judicata and should have been dismissed with prejudice.with prejudicebecause Appelleeif serviceisobtained within one year fronr***."28 It is well established that "no extension oftime can be granted after the one-year limitations period f'or cornmencement of an action asrequires service ofAppel

12 lee's Refiled Complaint withinone year o
lee's Refiled Complaint withinone year of its filing.Ohio Civil Rule 3(A) clearfy mandates that a complaint must be served within one ,year(10`h Dist. Nos. 06AP-3 70, 06AP-4841), 2006-Ohio-6002 ¶14-152$ Civ. R 3(A) (Einphasis added)29Fetlerolf v Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc.(1995), 104 Ohio App. 3 d 272, 277.7 defendants.. Such a rule goes to the essence of civil procedure andinstant mattet,a plaintiffis the masterof his ot her causesuch a litigant another oppottunity to do that which he failed to dofact,

13 in the instant action, Appellee also is
in the instant action, Appellee also is seeking a limited exception to Civil Rule 3(A) for anopportunity to do that which Appellee Sisk has voluntarily failed to do twice - - perfect serviceSaundersand theprinciple that the mandatory exclusive specific statutory provision embodied in Civil Rule 3(A)Saunders,the Appellateperfect timely service within one year as required under Civil Rttle 3(A)37 Appellee has failed31 Fettetolf, 104 Ohio App 3d at 27733 [d3ald36 Picca itov.Lucas County Boad oj Commis

14 sioners(Lucas Cty , 1990), 69 Ohio App 3
sioners(Lucas Cty , 1990), 69 Ohio App 3d 788, 7993"Belt v Midwestern Educational Services, Inc(Montgomery Cty. 1993), 89 Ohio App 3d 192, 2002-20038 to demonstrate that Appellants Grendell and the Committee caused Appellee to fail to serveB. Appellants' Filing ofa Leave to Plead DidNot Submit Appellants to PersonalTrial Court.Maryheiv v Yova, 39this Corut1e Saunders v Choi,supia39 11 Ohlo St. 3d 154, 464 N L. 2d 53841 Id. at156-5 7, 464 N E. 2d at 540-419 When determining whether a coutt obtains j

15 urisdiction over a defendant by virttte
urisdiction over a defendant by virttte of'Maryhew,the Supreme Coutt of Ohio concluded that analysis of' multiple Civil Rules wasMaryhew,this Court must reviewMaryhevv,the Supreme Court of Ohio expressly reliedBlount v4' that defendants raised insufficient service of process in theirpriorto patticipating in pre-trial litigation Here, on the same day that42 First Bank oJ Marietta v. Cline(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 317,466 N E 2d 567." First Bank of Maietta v Cline(1984), 12 Ohio St 3d 317, 466 N E 2d567;

16 Bell v Midwestern Educational(1993) 89
Bell v Midwestern Educational(1993) 89 Ohio App. 3d 193, 624 N.E. 2d 19610 athey filed their Civ. R. 12 (B)(6) motion, Appellants, the Committee and Giendell, filed a motionSaunders,Appellee is the45 Squnders v. Choi,supra."'Civ R.41(A)."y 2007, 114 Ohio St 3d 5611 Just as Appellee Sisk was required to dismiss his fust Complaint under Civil Rule 41(A)to dismissits refiled but unserved second Complaint before Appelleerestartthe one yeat service clock by refrling, yet a third action. Io`hold otherwi

17 se wouldsecond andthird actionspending a
se wouldsecond andthird actionspending atthe same time.. Ihatresult iscontrary to the purpose of and language in the Ohio Civil Rules, Moreover, under Appellee'sD, The Court of' Appeals Misapplied Controlling Authority T'rom This CourtThe Tenth District Court of Appeals held that Appellec's request for service of its RefiledGoolsby v Anderson C'oncrele Corp,where"an instruction to the clerk to attempt service on the complaint will be the equivalent to a refilingS'hufer v Sunaports Surf Co, Inc'3,wh

18 ete the CouYt of Appeals determined that
ete the CouYt of Appeals determined that the previousGoolshyexception because "a second voluntasy dismissal (necessary in°9 Sisk & Associates v The Cornmittee to Glect Timothy Grendell,10th Dist. No. 07AP-1002, 2008-Ohio-2.3342, at^^^0 Goolsby v. Andevson Concrete Corp(1991), 61 Ohio st. 3d 549, at syllabusShafer v SunsportsSurfCo,Irrc(10th Dist No 06AP-484), 2006-Ohio-6002, ¶14-1512 oidei to refile) would have resulted in an adjudication upon the mesits of his claims under CivilOlynyk v. Scoles53a

19 ndThomas v. Freemcrn54, neither one of w
ndThomas v. Freemcrn54, neither one of which isOlynyk,this Court held that the "double-dismissal" rule did not apply io bar aOlynyk.also is inapplicable to this case. InThomcis,this Court held that itsThomas,never addiessed the issue of lack of sewice under Civ.. R.3(A) and tlie effect that a previousSzId.at¶15.Utynyk,114 Ohio S[. 3d at 64.13 voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff would have on Civ.. R. 12(B) motion to dismiss when theThomasbecause the trrial court dismissed both of the plaintiff's c

20 omplaints for failuxe to prosecute whenT
omplaints for failuxe to prosecute whenThomas,thereforc, doesShafer..E, The Lower Courts' Dismissal of Appellee's claims against Appellants shouldA dismissal with prejudice also is warranted in this case because Appellee Sisk has beenscrve Appellants, but has chosen to let the case languish, waste judicial resources, and disregazdId.Graham v Audio Clinic et al(3`d Dist. No 5-04-35), 2005-Ohio-1088, ¶33 (hnlding that dismissal withCartet v Crty of L.wain(9th Dist No. 04CA008537), 2005-Ohio-2564, ¶1

21 1 (holding that dismissal with prejudice
1 (holding that dismissal with prejudice14 complaints presented Appellee with sufficient oppottunity to prosecute its cause of action..^re'udice.Civil Rule 3(A).on pages5 and 6 of its Merit Brief', Civil Rule 4..6 (B)serviceof summons requirement under Civil Rule 3(A).. Asactionas required by Civ R. 3(A) has run."59 Moreover, the mandatoryEleventh Appellate District, citing this Court's opinion inSaunders,corYectly noted: "The very'9 FetterolJ,104 Ohio App 3d at 277Saunders v Choi,sur'_F'etterol v.

22 Hofjma»-LaRoche. Inc,su r15 buiden of p
Hofjma»-LaRoche. Inc,su r15 buiden of prosecuting their cases in a timely manner. When plaintiffs, like Sisk, fail to do so,case because Appellee canr ot comply wiCh Ohio Civil Rule 3(A) with respect to his second re-GoolsbydecisionSha erdecision recognize that a zequest for service of a complaiutRecognizing that a failure to obtain service of a previously voluntarily clismissed, re-filed16 Olyravk v. Scoles .InOlynyk,this Court focused on the fact that a Civil Rule 41(A)(1)(a)2&nuk,Appellee's fai

23 lure to comply with the Civil Rules with
lure to comply with the Civil Rules within17 Phone (440) 746-9600E-Mail: Grendellandsimon@yahoo.com7ohagter (005551.3)Cleveland, Ohio 44114Tel: (216) 621-5300/Fax: (216) 621-5440Attorney for Appellants18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThe undetsigned hereby ceitifies that a ttue and accurate copy of'the foregoingReplywas setved upon the following by oidinary U S mail this day of February, 2009:Iimothy J. Owens100 East Campus View Blvd.., Suite 360f(ttorney for Appellee'irhothy J. CneA11(0005827)uCL2:35280hv