Haley v. Nomad Preservation
2013 Ohio 159
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Haley obtained a prior $1.3 million judgment against Nomad Preservation, Inc. and an attachment on a 2005 Dodge Viper and a 2007 Hummer.
- Haley sued Makki and Ayache claiming they were transferees of the assets; he sought judgment against them under R.C. 1336.
- Ayache moved for summary judgment; Haley sought summary judgment against Ayache; Ayache then filed a motion to dismiss citing a journal entry from a related case.
- The trial court denied Haley’s summary judgment and dismissed Ayache’s claim less than an hour after Ayache’s motion.
- Makki moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court granted dismissal but later vacated due to issues with counsel; Haley sought default judgment and later sought to strike Makki’s dismissal.
- Makki’s response was never filed; the court later vacated all prior judgments against Makki after finding no personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Makki waived personal jurisdiction over Ohio court | Haley argues Makki did not waive jurisdiction when challenging it | Makki challenged jurisdiction; waiver requires certain actions or inaction | Overruled |
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Haley’s claim against Ayache using materials outside the pleadings | Haley asserts dismissal relied on improper outside material | Ayache argues dismissal was proper based on journal entry | Sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K’s Foods, Inc., 68 Ohio St.3d 181 (1994) (first-step long-arm jurisdiction analysis under statutory rule)
- Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 141 (2007) (waiver requires explicit submission to jurisdiction; mere appearance may not suffice)
- Warren v. Estate of Durham, 2011-Ohio-6416 (9th Dist.) (motions to dismiss cannot rely on evidence outside the complaint without conversion)
- State v. Dalchuck, 2003-Ohio-4268 (9th Dist.) (due process of response; need reasonable opportunity to respond to motions)
- DeWine v. 9150 Group, L.P., 2012-Ohio-3339 (9th Dist.) (de novo review of personal jurisdiction questions; burden of proof by preponderance)