Commons at Royal Landing, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 362
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- The Commons at Royal Landing, LLC (appellant) owns an apartment complex in Whitehall, Ohio; Whitehall issued four code-violation warnings for four units.
- Appellant appealed each warning to the City of Whitehall Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (the Board); the Board held hearings on April 29, 2014 and deliberated again on June 9, 2014, using executive sessions and ultimately denying the appeals.
- Appellant filed administrative appeals to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and then, on October 2, 2014, a separate complaint alleging the Board violated the Ohio Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) by unlawfully adjourning into executive sessions.
- Appellees moved to dismiss (denied) and later filed for summary judgment; appellant opposed the motion and attached counsel’s affidavit asserting needed discovery (notably depositions) had not occurred.
- Appellant never filed a Civ.R. 56(F) motion requesting a continuance to complete discovery nor did it subpoena witnesses or move to compel discovery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees; appellant appealed, arguing the court erred by not allowing meaningful discovery under Civ.R. 56(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without allowing further discovery under Civ.R. 56(F) | Appellant argued it lacked adequate opportunity to complete discovery (e.g., depositions of Board members) and needed a continuance to oppose summary judgment | Appellees argued the court properly ruled because appellant failed to file a Civ.R. 56(F) motion and did not provide a particularized affidavit explaining why additional discovery was necessary | The court affirmed: appellant waived the right to a continuance by not filing a Civ.R. 56(F) motion and counsel’s affidavit was insufficiently particularized to require delay of summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Maschari v. Tone, 103 Ohio St.3d 411 (2004) (explains the procedure and standards related to Civ.R. 56(F) continuances and filing requirements)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, 189 Ohio App.3d 560 (2010) (party seeking a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance must provide a particularized factual affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary)