Harris v. Cunix
187 N.E.3d 582
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2014 Harris, a casino poker dealer, alleged two separate sexual contacts by Cunix while he was a player at her table (June and December incidents).
- Harris sued on March 27, 2020 under R.C. 4112.02(J) (aiding and abetting sex discrimination); Cunix moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- Harris filed an amended complaint (Aug. 13, 2020) without leave adding a civil-liability-for-criminal-acts claim under R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) (assault and sexual offenses).
- Cunix moved to strike the amended complaint, arguing R.C. 2307.60 claims are penal and thus barred by the one-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.11(A)).
- The trial court agreed, denied Harris’s motion to amend as futile, struck the amended complaint, and dismissed the case with prejudice; Harris appealed.
- The appellate court reversed the denial to amend, holding R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) is remedial and governed by the six-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.07(B)), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations for R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) claims (penal v. remedial) | R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) is remedial; the General Assembly used "damages," so R.C. 2305.07(B)'s six-year period applies | R.C. 2307.60 contemplates punitive/exemplary damages, so it is penal and subject to R.C. 2305.11(A)'s one-year period; prior Ohio and federal decisions uniformly apply one year | The court held R.C. 2307.60(A)(1) is remedial and governed by the six-year statute (R.C. 2305.07(B)); trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the one-year limitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., 70 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 1994) (sets out factors/test for determining whether a statute is penal or remedial)
- Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 105 Ohio St.3d 296 (Ohio 2005) (focus on statutory text—use of "damages" signals remedial purpose)
- Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 113 Ohio St.3d 394 (Ohio 2007) (consider statutory context, primary purpose, and whether statute augments enforcement via penalties)
- Rice v. CertainTeed Corp., 84 Ohio St.3d 417 (Ohio 1999) (a statute authorizing punitive damages is not automatically penal)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (Ohio 1994) (explains punitive damages aim—to punish and deter rather than compensate)
- Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2016) (holds R.C. 2307.60 creates a civil cause of action for damages)