Bullard v. McDonald's
2021 Ohio 1505
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In June 2019, Felicia Bullard sued “McDonald’s” after she alleged she became sick from a sandwich eaten at a McDonald’s restaurant in Columbus, Ohio.
- Bullard’s original complaint contained procedural defects (requested ordinary-mail service instead of required certified service; sought a specific damages amount without required attachments) and McDonald’s was not properly served, so it did not file an answer.
- Bullard moved for judgment on the pleadings (Civ.R. 12(C)) claiming McDonald’s did not deny her allegations; the trial court denied that motion and warned it would sua sponte dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) unless she amended.
- Bullard filed an amended complaint that contained no new factual allegations against McDonald’s—only attached medical bills, an EKG, and handwritten marginalia (e.g., “negligence,” “food poison,” “McDonald’s”).
- She filed a successive motion for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court denied the motion as premature (pleadings not closed) and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- Bullard appealed; the Tenth District affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Bullard’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion (judgment on the pleadings) was erroneous | Bullard argued her motion was proper because McDonald’s did not deny her allegations | McDonald’s (and the court) argued the pleadings were not closed because McDonald’s had not been served and had not answered | Court held the motion was premature and denial was proper because an answer had not been filed |
| Whether the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Bullard argued dismissal was improper and that procedural rules should be applied equally to pro se litigants | Court reasoned the amended complaint contained no factual allegations stating a claim and that sua sponte dismissal was proper after notice and opportunity to amend | Court held dismissal with prejudice was proper: amended complaint failed to state any factual basis for relief and dismissal did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 106 (1995) (courts generally must give notice and opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissal)
- State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462 (2016) (sua sponte dismissal without notice can be warranted if complaint is frivolous or claimant cannot prevail)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6): dismiss only if no set of facts entitles plaintiff to relief)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (court must presume factual allegations are true and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co. LPA, 183 Ohio App.3d 40 (2009) (courts need not accept unsupported conclusory legal propositions)
- Hidey v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 116 Ohio App.3d 744 (10th Dist. 1996) (an amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint)
- Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651 (10th Dist. 2001) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties)