Eckmeyer v. Blough
2013 Ohio 3603
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2005 Kevin Eckmeyer sued Brimfield Township, multiple Brimfield police officers, and several private defendants asserting civil-rights and related state-law claims; the case was removed to federal court.
- On January 11, 2007 the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Brimfield Defendants, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and stating there were "no remaining allegations" as to them and citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (no just reason for delay).
- The federal action remained open against the Remaining Defendants until February 28, 2007, when the district court granted summary judgment for those defendants as well.
- Eckmeyer re-filed in Summit County Common Pleas on February 27, 2008; the Brimfield Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the re-filed claims were time-barred under Ohio’s savings statute, R.C. 2305.19.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Brimfield Defendants, finding Eckmeyer did not re-file within one year of the failure otherwise than on the merits as applied to the Brimfield Defendants’ dismissal.
- This appeal challenges whether the one-year savings period began when the district court entered the partial final judgment as to the Brimfield Defendants (Jan. 11, 2007) or only when the entire federal action terminated (Feb. 28, 2007).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the one-year savings-period under R.C. 2305.19 begin where some defendants were dismissed earlier than others in the same federal suit? | Eckmeyer: the savings clock begins only when the entire action terminates, not when claims against some defendants are finally dismissed. | Brimfield Defs: the clock began when the district court issued a final, 54(b) judgment dismissing all claims against the Brimfield Defendants. | The court held the savings period began on Jan. 11, 2007, when the district court entered a final, appealable 54(b) order as to the Brimfield Defendants; Eckmeyer’s re-filing was untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Cero Realty Corp. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 171 Ohio St. 82 (Ohio 1960) (savings statute is remedial and to be liberally construed)
- Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio 1997) (savings statute may be used only once to refile)
- Topazio v. ACME Co., 186 Ohio App.3d 377 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (procedural points about asserting the savings statute in response to motions/answers)