Hall v. Crystal Clinic, Inc.
2017 Ohio 8471
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Arlan Hall originally filed a medical-malpractice action in June 2010, voluntarily dismissed in September 2011, then refiled in August 2012 (Summit C.P. No. CV‑2012‑08‑4446).
- Defendants (Dr. Ehrler, Crystal Clinic, Inc., Crystal Clinic Orthopaedic Surgeons, Inc.) answered the refiled complaint on August 31, 2012.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on August 12, 2013, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and that the savings statute did not apply because the original action allegedly failed for lack of service.
- The motion was styled under Civ.R. 3(A) and Civ.R. 4.1(A) and was not presented as a Civ.R. 12(B)/(C) motion; the trial court granted the motion on January 27, 2017.
- On appeal the Ninth District treated the trial court’s ruling as one on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion (judgment on the pleadings) because defendants had already answered.
- The panel held the trial court erred because the dismissal was based on facts outside the pleadings, which a Civ.R. 12(C) ruling cannot consider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed refiled complaint based on alleged defective service in original case | Hall argued dismissal improper because trial court relied on matters outside the pleadings and Civ.R.12(C) restricts decision to pleadings | Defendants argued original-case service failure prevented savings statute from saving refiled action, so trial court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper | Court held judgment on pleadings may not be supported by facts outside pleadings; trial court erred and dismissal reversed |
| Proper procedural vehicle for defendants’ motion | Hall argued motion was effectively a Civ.R.12(C) motion because defendants had already answered | Defendants framed motion under Civ.R.3/4.1, not Civ.R.12 | Court treated the motion as Civ.R.12(C) and applied the pleadings-only rule |
| Whether a Civ.R.12(C) motion can be converted to summary judgment when it relies on extra-pleading facts | Hall asserted conversion mechanism not available for 12(C) motions | Defendants implicitly urged court to consider outside facts to resolve motion | Court noted Civ.R.12(B)(has conversion to summary judgment) but held no mechanism exists to convert a Civ.R.12(C) motion to summary judgment; outside facts cannot be considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (1973) (Civ.R.12(C) presents questions of law and is limited to the allegations in the pleadings)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (motion filed after pleadings close should be considered under Civ.R.12(C))
- Epperly v. Medina City Bd. of Edn., 64 Ohio App.3d 74 (9th Dist. 1989) (trial court ruling on Civ.R.12(C) is limited to the face of the pleadings)
- Lin v. Gatehouse Constr. Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96 (8th Dist. 1992) (discussing when post‑pleadings motions are treated as Civ.R.12(C) motions)