Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care
2019 Ohio 3229
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Dr. David Ginn bought a dental practice from Dr. R. Douglas Martin; the sale included a noncompete barring Martin from practicing within 30 miles. Martin later worked for a Stonecreek Dental office in Chillicothe and Stonecreek aired ads using Martin’s voice. Ginn sued Martin (breach of the noncompete) and Stonecreek (tortious interference with a contract and business relationships).
- After multiple appeals and remands, a jury found Martin liable and awarded Ginn $125,000; on remand Ginn obtained a $1,500,000 verdict against the trade name “Stonecreek Dental Care” for tortious interference with a contract; punitive damages were not awarded.
- Ginn sought prejudgment interest, expanded discovery into financial records of multiple entities using the Stonecreek trade name (to prove net worth for punitive damages), and tried to elicit combined financial testimony at the punitive-damages phase; the trial court denied prejudgment interest, denied the late discovery, and limited questioning of financials to the Chillicothe LLC.
- Stonecreek moved to correct the judgment caption because “Stonecreek Dental Care” is a trade name used by multiple legal entities and the Chillicothe office is actually an LLC; the trial court refused to change the judgment caption. Both parties appealed.
- The Twelfth District affirmed: (1) prejudgment interest was not required under R.C. 1343.03(A) and denial under (C) was not an abuse of discretion; (2) denial of late discovery and limitation of financial questioning at trial were not abusive; and (3) a judgment against a registered trade name is not void under R.C. 1329.10(C) and Family Medicine Foundation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ginn) | Defendant's Argument (Stonecreek) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest was required on tortious-interference verdict | R.C. 1343.03(A) applies because claim "arose out of" a contract; alternatively (C) permits interest because Stonecreek failed to make a good-faith settlement effort | Prejudgment interest not due because the claim is tort-based and (A) applies only to postjudgment interest; no bad-faith settlement conduct | Court: (A) does not mandate prejudgment interest on these tort damages; (C) denial was not an abuse of discretion—no evidence of settlement offers and Stonecreek cooperated in discovery |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Ginn’s motion to compel financial discovery of all entities using the Stonecreek trade name | Financials of all owners/users relevant to punitive damages and net worth; late demand excused by lack of formal discovery cutoff | Discovery motion untimely—plaintiff had ample time before the first trial; reopening would be prejudicial and unnecessary | Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff had opportunity pretrial and gave no adequate reason for delay |
| Whether exclusion/limitation of testimony about combined financial status prejudiced Ginn’s punitive-damages claim | Full combined net-worth testimony was essential to prove punitive damages; limiting to Chillicothe LLC prejudiced plaintiff | Limitation proper because plaintiff sued the trade name and trial court controlled scope; no shown prejudice | Court: Even if exclusion arguable, Ginn failed to proffer the excluded testimony and jury heard combined revenue figure yet awarded no punitive damages—no reversible prejudice |
| Whether judgment entered against the trade name "Stonecreek Dental Care" is void or should be corrected to name the Chillicothe LLC | Ginn intended to sue the trade name; judgment against the trade name is valid and not void | Judgment is void because a trade name is a nonentity and the proper defendant was the Chillicothe LLC; court should correct or amend judgment | Court: R.C. 1329.10(C) and Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Family Medicine Foundation) allow actions to be commenced and maintained against a trade/fictitious name; judgment is not void and Civ.R. 60(A)/15(B) relief was not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Family Medicine Foundation, Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 (Ohio 2002) (Ohio Supreme Court holds R.C. 1329.10(C) permits lawsuits to be commenced and maintained against a fictitious/trade name)
- Kalain v. Smith, 25 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1986) (sets factors for determining whether a party failed to make a good-faith settlement effort under R.C. 1343.03(C))
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (burden on party seeking prejudgment interest; abuse-of-discretion review of prejudgment-interest rulings)
- Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573 (Ohio 1992) (discusses judgments against fictitious names; distinguished by Family Medicine)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine cited for prior appellate rulings)