2015 Ohio 346
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Sam Han was hired in 2008 as a non‑tenured law professor at University of Dayton School of Law (UDSL); annual retention by a six‑member tenured PRT committee governed renewals.
- PRT renewed Han in 2009 and 2010 but criticized his scholarship; in May 2011 the PRT unanimously recommended non‑renewal for inadequate scholarly publications; Dean Kloppenberg accepted that recommendation.
- Han sued UD, UDSL, the dean, and the six PRT members alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, tortious interference, and respondeat superior; many claims survived initial motions to dismiss.
- Discovery disputes arose (terminated deposition of Dean McGreal, protective orders, stay of discovery); Han sought a Civ. R. 56(F) continuance to take two more depositions but the trial court denied the request and later granted UD summary judgment on all claims.
- Han’s motion to file a second amended complaint to add UD’s trial counsel and assert litigation‑misconduct claims was denied; he appealed the denial and the summary judgment rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Civ. R. 56(F) continuance to reopen discovery | Han said he needed depositions of Professors Chaffee and Lech and other unspecified documents to oppose summary judgment | UD argued discovery was dilatory, Han failed to identify needed facts, and discovery was stayed after misconduct at McGreal deposition | No abuse: Han failed to specify facts to be discovered or show diligence; denial affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was improper on breach of contract (fairness/procedural claims) | Han argued PRT/UD acted "unfairly," suppressed materials, misrepresented facts, and failed to support his professional development | UD showed PRT considered evaluations, substantial compliance with contract/handbook, and non‑renewal was for insufficient scholarship | Summary judgment proper: no genuine dispute of material fact; contract required substantial (not exact) compliance; non‑renewal justified by inadequate scholarship |
| Whether promissory estoppel or fraud claims survive despite written contracts | Han claimed equitable promises and misrepresentations induced reliance | UD argued written annual contracts governed and no actionable misrepresentations shown | Fail: promissory estoppel precluded by existing contract; fraud unsupported by admissible evidence |
| Whether tortious interference and respondeat superior claims remain | Han alleged third‑party interference and sought vicarious liability against UD | UD argued non‑renewal was justified and no unjustified procurement of breach; vicarious liability depends on underlying torts | Fail: no lack of justification; underlying tort claims fail, so no respondeat superior liability |
Key Cases Cited
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (establishes "abuse of discretion" standard explanation)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (sets plaintiff's burden once movant meets summary judgment showing)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (standard for summary judgment/construing evidence for nonmovant)
- Fred Siegel Co., LPA v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100 (doctrine and elements of promissory estoppel)
- Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St.3d 207 (no respondeat superior where employee not liable)
- Valente v. University of Dayton, 689 F.Supp.2d 910 (federal case noting only substantial compliance with faculty contract required)
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review standard for appellate summary judgment review)