Gardner v. Paxton
2018 Ohio 52
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Douglas S. Gardner, pro se, sued defendant Rodney E. Paxton alleging Paxton failed to make equal contributions and engaged in improper transactions related to Triple Tree Pre‑Cut Products, LLC.
- Gardner previously litigated matters involving Triple Tree in Gardner’s Custom Sawing, LLC v. Silvesco, Inc., et al., Case No. 10 OT 41 in Washington County Common Pleas Court.
- Paxton moved to dismiss Gardner’s original complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 9(B); the court denied that motion and ordered an amended complaint.
- After Gardner filed an amended complaint, Paxton filed a second motion to dismiss that included a res judicata defense alleging the claims were resolved in the earlier action.
- The trial court granted dismissal on res judicata grounds without converting the motion to a Civ.R. 56 summary‑judgment motion or giving Gardner notice/opportunity to respond with evidence.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court committed reversible plain error by failing to convert the motion and afford Gardner the Civ.R. 56 process required when res judicata depends on matters outside the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Gardner's amended complaint on res judicata grounds via Civ.R. 12(B) without converting to Civ.R. 56 | Gardner argued his claims accrued after the prior action and are not barred; he disputed that he was alleging fraud | Paxton argued the claims related to and were resolved by the earlier Gardner’s Custom Sawing litigation, so res judicata bars them | The court held res judicata is an affirmative defense not properly decided on a Civ.R. 12(B) motion when it depends on matters outside the pleadings; the trial court should have converted the motion to summary judgment and given Gardner notice and a chance to respond; reversal and remand. |
| Whether failure to convert and afford Civ.R. 56 process was harmless | Gardner implied denial of due process and that conversion was required before dismissal on res judicata | Paxton implicitly acknowledged res judicata required summary‑judgment procedure in his filings | The court found plain error (due process) in failing to convert the motion and afford Civ.R. 56 procedures, warranting reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62 (Ohio 2014) (res judicata is an affirmative defense and cannot be raised in a Civ.R. 12(B) motion; conversion to Civ.R. 56 required when defense depends on matters outside the pleadings)
- State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1991) (affirmative defenses not proper in Civ.R. 12(B) list)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (standard for invoking plain error in civil cases)