Estate of Kuzda v. PRF Enters., Inc.
2017 Ohio 4185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Fatal 2011 car accident caused by Jilek, who was intoxicated; Kuzda’s estate sued three bars (including PRF and DougOut) under Ohio dram shop law.
- PRF (Jilek’s employer) served discovery on DougOut; some requests were served before DougOut was formally served with the complaint.
- Multiple motions to compel were granted against DougOut; the court threatened escalating monetary sanctions but did not expressly warn of default until September 23, 2015.
- PRF moved for sanctions; after a September 22, 2015 “sanctions” hearing at which DougOut’s counsel was late because of a medical appointment, the court ordered PRF to file for default judgment.
- The court later entered a $500,000 default judgment for PRF against DougOut without holding a damages hearing; DougOut moved for relief under Civ.R. 60(B), which the trial court denied without a hearing.
- The appellate court reversed, vacated the default judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PRF) | Defendant's Argument (DougOut) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry of default judgment as a discovery sanction without a hearing was proper | Discovery failures justified default; PRF sought full recovery ($500,000) because noncompliance prevented apportionment | DougOut produced/ made documents available, counsel had medical issues, lacked willfulness/bad faith, lacked adequate notice of default sanction | Court reversed: default judgment as discovery sanction was an abuse of discretion; insufficient notice and no evidence of willfulness or bad faith |
| Whether denial of DougOut’s motion for relief from judgment without a hearing was proper | Trial court implicitly held relief unwarranted | DougOut argued entitlement to a hearing and presented meritorious defenses (limited time Jilek spent at DougOut, intervening service at other bar) | Appellate court found this claim moot after reversing default judgment but noted trial-court error in denying relief without a hearing when default was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1958) (harsh sanctions like dismissal/default require willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
- Toney v. Berkemer, 6 Ohio St.3d 455 (Ohio 1983) (default as discovery sanction proper only for willful/bad-faith noncompliance; health excuses may preclude default)
- Jones v. Hartranft, 78 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 1997) (disfavoring disposition on merits without careful review; narrows trial court discretion for defaults)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (Ohio 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2005) (reiterating limits on default/dismissal sanctions)