Davis v. Marcotte
951 N.E.2d 117
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Davis sued for maternal-neonatal malpractice; Beams sought pro hac vice admission for Fieger and Raymond in 2004; Lucas Cty case proceeded while admission granted; later McLeod v. MC Ohio Court of Claims (2007) granted Fieger pro hac vice; St. Vincent moved to revoke admission in 2010 citing pattern of misconduct; Court of Claims held a hearing and revoked Fieger’s admission; Davis appeals along with Fieger, but Fieger was not party to underlying case and is dismissed from the appeal.
- The Court of Claims consolidated Davis and McLeod dockets Feb.–Mar. 2009–2010; evidence showed limited direct involvement by Fieger in discovery after initial admission; the court cited prior disciplinary actions and alleged misconduct in multiple jurisdictions; the trial court applied Ross factors and found Fieger ill-suited for continued practice in this case.
- The Ohio Court of Claims held a hearing and granted the motion to revoke pro hac vice admission in March 2010; it relied on evidence of a pattern of conduct and lack of substantial involvement, and found Ohio-licensed counsel competent and available; the Court of Claims found no need for a further evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, the Tenth District dismissed Fieger as a party to the appeal; the court rejected arguments that revocation violated due process and that Ross was misapplied; the court affirmed the denial of pro hac vice admission revocation and remanded for further proceedings.
- The ultimate outcome: the appellate court overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the judgment, remanding to the Ohio Court of Claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims abused its discretion revoking pro hac vice | Davis: trial court abused discretion | St. Vincent: authorities support revocation | No abuse; revocation affirmed |
| Whether Ross factors were properly applied | Davis: Ross misapplied | St. Vincent: proper use of Ross factors | Ross factors appropriately applied or alternative grounds support the outcome |
| Whether due process was violated by revocation | Fieger: due process violation | St. Vincent: hearing sufficient | No due process violation; hearing adequate |
| Whether Fieger could be an appellee party given nonparty status | Davis: Fieger not party; improper to participate | St. Vincent: dismissal appropriate | Fieger cannot be party to the appeal; dismissed from appeal |
| Whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing | Davis: hearing not required | St. Vincent: record supports decision | No mandatory additional evidentiary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ross, 36 Ohio App.2d 185 (Ohio App.2d 1973) (three-prong test for pro hac vice admission; factors used to assess suitability)
- Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1986) (abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing admission decisions)
- Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine, 144 Ohio St.275 (Ohio 1944) (summary-judgment-like rationale; affirming on alternative grounds)
- Perry v. Gen. Motors Corp., 113 Ohio App.3d 318 (Ohio App.3d 1996) (affirming judgment on another correct ground despite erroneous reasoning)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion as arbitrary, unreasonable)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse of discretion concepts in appellate review)