Agrawal v. Univ. of Cincinnati
2017 Ohio 8644
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dharma P. Agrawal was hired by the University of Cincinnati in 1998 as an OBR Distinguished Professor; offer letters (June 1 and 12, 1998) were attached to his complaint.
- Agrawal alleged breaches occurring in 1998, 2006, and 2008: diversion of OBR Ph.D. funds, failure to provide promised discretionary research funds and support for a research center, reduced space, stipend failures, and demotion of title.
- He filed a breach-of-contract suit in the Court of Claims on November 16, 2015; the complaint pleaded a continuing contract but alleged discrete earlier breaches.
- The University moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred; the Court of Claims dismissed, citing both statute-of-limitations and collective-bargaining jurisdictional grounds.
- On appeal the Tenth District reviewed de novo, concluded the collective-bargaining rationale lacked evidentiary support in the record, but affirmed dismissal because the complaint on its face was time-barred under the two-year limitations statute governing Court of Claims suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Claims had jurisdiction over Agrawal's contract claims | Agrawal: First District already directed claims to Court of Claims; his claims concern individual contract terms, not subject to collective bargaining | Univ.: Claims should be resolved under collective bargaining procedures and Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction | Court: No record evidence of a CBA; Court of Claims did have jurisdiction — dismissal on that basis reversed |
| Whether the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations | Agrawal: Contract obligations are ongoing and limitations run from contract termination (which has not occurred) | Univ.: Breaches alleged occurred in 1998, 2006, 2008; Court of Claims actions are subject to a two-year limitations period | Court: Claims accrued at alleged breaches; complaint and attachments show claims are time-barred under R.C. 2743.16 (two-year limit); dismissal affirmed |
| Whether an ongoing/continuing breach tolls limitations | Agrawal: Implied ongoing obligations justify tolling (argued briefly) | Univ.: No factual basis in complaint to treat breaches as continuing | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead or argue continuing breach adequately; no basis to apply continuing-breach exception |
| Proper procedural ground for dismissal (12(B)(1) v. 12(B)(6)) | Agrawal: Court of Claims erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction | Univ.: Supported dismissal on jurisdictional or timeliness grounds | Court: Dismissal is affirmed but on 12(B)(6) statute-of-limitations grounds; 12(B)(1) dismissal for CBA lacked evidentiary support and is reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (statute-of-limitations dismissal is proper if complaint conclusively shows claim is time-barred)
- Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co., 40 Ohio St.2d 55 (standards for limitations dismissal)
- Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.3d 109 (pertinent evidentiary materials may be considered on 12(B)(1) challenge)
- Southgate Dev. Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 211 (same — jurisdictional evidentiary review)
- Elliott v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 88 Ohio App.3d 1 (limitations on converting 12(B)(6) to summary judgment regarding attachments)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 441 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D.N.Y.) (explaining continuing-breach doctrine and tolling for contracts requiring continuous performance)
- Conley v. Shearer, 64 Ohio St.3d 284 (tolling principles when cases refiled or transferred)