Gingrich v. G&G Feed & Supply, L.L.C.
2019 Ohio 4779
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Lori J. Gingrich sued G&G Feed & Supply, Tera Gore, Global Vision Alliance, Inc., and IronGate Equestrian Center for an intentional tort, alleging Gore struck her with a metal clipboard on April 15, 2016.
- Gingrich had earlier filed a workers' compensation claim against G&G (July 2016) and appealed an administrative decision in November 2017; the intentional-tort complaint was filed April 11, 2018 (amended April 13, 2018).
- Defendants did not answer the intentional-tort complaint; Gingrich moved for default judgment (June 26, 2018), the trial court entered default (July 26, 2018), and after a damages hearing the court awarded $953,578.75 (Sept. 7, 2018).
- Defendants filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion (Sept. 27, 2018) claiming excusable neglect and that they mistakenly thought the filings related to the workers’ compensation matter; the trial court granted relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (5) (Jan. 15, 2019).
- On deposition, Gore admitted she often did not open or read mailed court filings, signed for service for three of the four defendants, did not forward filings to counsel, and assumed materials related to BWC matters.
- The appellate court reversed, holding defendants’ conduct showed inattention and willful disregard rather than excusable neglect, and remanded to reinstate the default judgment and damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Civ.R. 60(B) relief under (1) excusable neglect and (5) catch‑all | Gingrich: Defendants had notice and failed to respond; their failure was inexcusable and reflected disregard for the judicial process | Defendants: They reasonably believed filings were part of the earlier BWC proceeding, retained counsel for BWC, delay was short, and they have meritorious defenses | Reversed. Appellate court held defendants’ failure to open/read mail and to notify counsel was carelessness and not excusable neglect; relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) or (5) was improper; default judgment reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75, 514 N.E.2d 1122 (Ohio 1987) (Civ.R. 60(B) motions lie within trial court discretion)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (three‑part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard on appeal)
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 665 N.E.2d 1102 (Ohio 1996) (inaction after receiving complaint generally is not excusable neglect)
- Vanest v. Pillsbury Co., 124 Ohio App.3d 525, 706 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (excusable neglect defined as due to unexpected or unavoidable hindrance rather than carelessness)