Gore v. Mohamod
2022 Ohio 2227
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff Anita Gore sued on Sept. 30, 2020, alleging an injury when an Uber driver closed a door and dragged her from his vehicle on Sept. 12, 2018.
- Claims included negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, respondeat superior, and negligent entrustment against the driver, Uber corporate defendants, and Doe defendants.
- Uber corporate defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.10); Gore responded by asking the court to convert the motion to one for summary judgment, asserting (outside the complaint) that defendants had told her the limitations period extended to Oct. 1, 2020 (equitable estoppel theory).
- The trial court denied conversion because the defendants’ motion relied only on the complaint’s allegations, found the complaint showed the action was time-barred on its face, and granted the motion to dismiss; it also noted Gore had not pleaded facts showing defendants prevented timely filing.
- Gore later served the driver, who moved for judgment on the pleadings on the same limitations ground; Gore did not oppose that motion and the court granted it, entering final judgment for all defendants.
- Gore appealed; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the complaint failed to allege facts supporting equitable estoppel and that Gore had opportunities to amend but did not do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying conversion of the 12(B)(6) motion to a summary-judgment motion | Gore argued conversion was appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence (equitable estoppel) that defendants told her the limitations period ran to Oct. 1, 2020 | Defendants argued their motion relied solely on the face of the complaint and no outside materials were presented | Denied: conversion improper because defendants relied only on the complaint; Civ.R. 12(B) conversion applies only when movant presents matters outside the pleading |
| Whether the complaint should survive a 12(B)(6) dismissal despite the statute-of-limitations date being apparent | Gore argued equitable estoppel should preclude the limitations defense based on alleged representations | Defendants argued the complaint itself showed the claim accrued Sept. 12, 2018 and contained no factual allegations that would support equitable estoppel or tolling | Dismissal affirmed: complaint on its face was time-barred and lacked pleaded facts showing defendants prevented timely filing; plaintiff could have amended but did not |
| Whether the driver’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted | Gore relied on the same equitable-estoppel contention but did not file opposition to the motion | Driver argued the pleadings showed the action was untimely against him as well | Granted: judgment on the pleadings proper because the complaint showed the limitations bar and Gore failed to plead or amend to assert tolling; she also waived opposition by not responding |
| Whether Gore's failure to amend or seek leave to amend was excused | Gore argued she could not have pleaded later conduct in the complaint | Defendants noted Gore could have alleged the estoppel facts or sought leave to amend after the dismissal motion was filed | Held: Not excused—plaintiff could have pleaded equitable-estoppel facts and did not seek leave to amend during the months between motion and ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 116 Ohio St.3d 538 (Ohio 2008) (equitable estoppel to overcome statute of limitations must be pleaded with facts showing defendant prevented timely filing)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint and requires acceptance of complaint allegations)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (appellate review of dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is de novo)
- Noe v. Smith, 143 Ohio App.3d 215 (Ohio App. 2000) (when limitations defect appears on the face of the complaint, plaintiff may avoid dismissal by amending to allege facts preventing operation of the statute of limitations)