Carter v. Univ. Park Dev. Corp.
2017 Ohio 5795
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Roger W. Carter refiled a complaint (after voluntarily dismissing a prior suit) against University Park entities and 16 individual defendants asserting financial improprieties related to a real-estate LLC in which he was a member.
- Defendants filed multiple Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss; Carter sought leave to amend to drop 11 individual defendants and to realign claims against remaining defendants.
- The trial court denied Carter leave to amend because amendment would unduly prejudice defendants (motions to dismiss already pending and the case was a refiled action). The court instructed Carter to either (1) dismiss the 11 individuals under Civ.R. 41(A)(1), (2) file a limited amended complaint, or (3) proceed with his original complaint.
- Carter repeatedly attempted to remove the 11 individuals by various means (Civ.R. 41(A)(2), Civ.R. 4(E), renewed Civ.R. 15(A)), which the court rejected as gamesmanship and noncompliance with its order.
- After multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, the trial court dismissed Carter’s claims against the 11 individual defendants with prejudice for failure to comply/failure to prosecute under Civ.R. 41(B).
- Carter appealed, arguing the court abused discretion in denying leave to amend and violated his right to a day in court by dismissing claims with prejudice; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend (Civ.R. 15(A)) | Carter argued he should have been allowed to amend to drop 11 defendants and realign claims | Defendants argued amendment would prejudice them because motions to dismiss were pending and the case was a refiled action | Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion given undue prejudice, delay, and prior litigation history |
| Whether trial court improperly limited Carter’s procedural options when directing how to dismiss defendants | Carter claimed the court impermissibly restricted his procedural remedies under the Rules | Defendants argued the court’s directions responded to Carter’s stated goals and preserved options (voluntary dismissal, limited amendment, or proceed) | Held for defendants: court’s order was appropriate and responsive; Carter chose alternative procedural tactics amounting to gamesmanship |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 4(E) was required (failure to serve within 6 months) | Carter contended lack of service required dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 4(E) | Defendants argued Carter abused the rule to avoid dismissal with prejudice and delayed to exploit the six-month rule | Held for defendants: trial court properly denied Civ.R. 4(E) dismissal as gamesmanship and applied Civ.R. 1(B) principles |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B) was an abuse of discretion | Carter claimed deprivation of due process and denial of his day in court because dismissal was harsh and orders impermissibly restricted counsel | Defendants asserted repeated noncompliance, dilatory tactics, and undue prejudice justified dismissal with prejudice | Held for defendants: dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion given repeated noncompliance, long litigation history, and prejudice to defendants; lesser sanctions were considered implicitly |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (appellate review of discretionary rulings)
- Wilmington Steel Prods., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1991) (Civ.R. 15(A) favors liberal amendment policy)
- Sazima v. Chalko, 86 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio 1999) (dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction; reserved for extreme conduct)
- Jones v. Hartranft, 78 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 1997) (factors for dismissal with prejudice include drawn-out litigation and deliberate dilatoriness)
- Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1997) (heightened scrutiny for dismissal with prejudice)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute to manage their dockets)
- Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 576 (Ohio 1994) (standards for dismissal for failure to prosecute)