2013 Ohio 5029
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On December 4, 2009 Garrick's car struck an RTA train; Garrick and passenger Cleola Vester sued RTA (claims for bodily injury) and later refiled the action on March 1, 2012.
- RTA answered and filed a counterclaim alleging Garrick caused the collision; RTA sought property-damage recovery and indemnification.
- Plaintiffs failed to respond to RTA's requests for admissions and other discovery; RTA moved to deem the requests admitted and for default judgment on its counterclaim.
- On July 10, 2012 the trial court granted RTA's motions: it deemed admissions admitted and entered default judgment on the counterclaim for $781 and indemnification rights as to Vester's recovery.
- Plaintiffs later opposed summary judgment, sought withdrawal of the admissions, and Garrick moved for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the default judgment; the trial court denied relief and granted RTA summary judgment on the remaining claims.
- Garrick appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying withdrawal of admissions, denying relief from judgment, and granting summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to withdraw deemed admissions | Garrick: admissions should be withdrawn so he can defend summary judgment | RTA: failures to respond and to comply with discovery justify deeming admissions admitted and denial of withdrawal | Court: No abuse of discretion; admissions properly deemed admitted and withdrawal not required |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief should have been granted to vacate default judgment on counterclaim | Garrick: excusable neglect (limited resources, age, foreclosure, attorney workload) warrants relief | RTA: no sufficient grounds shown within rule; plaintiffs had been nonresponsive | Court: Denied; Garrick failed to satisfy Civ.R. 60(B) requirements; new appellate argument about attorney incompetence not raised below and cannot be considered |
| Whether summary judgment for RTA on plaintiffs' claims was improper | Garrick: summary judgment relied on erroneous denial of withdrawal and erroneous denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief | RTA: summary judgment supported by deemed admissions and existing default judgment on counterclaim | Court: Affirmed summary judgment because admissions and default judgment supported RTA's entitlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66 (admissions may establish facts central to case)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Roland, 47 Ohio App.3d 93 (standard of review for denial of motion to withdraw admissions)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Civ.R. 60(B) abuse-of-discretion review)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Svoboda v. Brunswick, 6 Ohio St.3d 348 (failure to meet any Civ.R. 60(B) requirement warrants denial)