Hurley v. Nifty 50 Tavern
2017 Ohio 7935
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Hurley (pro se) sued Nifty 50 Tavern and its co-owners after a fall on December 31, 2014, alleging numerous torts and code violations but pleading very few operative facts.
- Complaint (filed Dec. 30, 2016) alleged injury and claimed failure to comply with building codes (including handicap ramp requirements) and sought injunction and damages; it listed ten causes of action without factual detail.
- Defendants were served in January–February 2017; they sought and received a 28‑day extension to respond and filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss on February 13, 2017.
- Hurley moved for default judgment and for summary judgment; he provided no evidentiary materials in support of summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Hurley’s motions and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hurley appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and service of defendants’ extension and motion to dismiss | Hurley argued the extension entry and motion to dismiss were filed late and he was not served | Defendants said extension was timely and motion to dismiss was served by mail; motion tolled answer time | Court: extension and motion were timely; certificate of service shows mailing to Hurley; no prejudice shown |
| Entitlement to default judgment | Hurley argued defendants failed to answer and sought default judgment | Defendants had timely filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, so they were not in default | Court: denial of default judgment proper because defendants had moved to dismiss |
| Summary judgment for Hurley | Hurley moved for summary judgment seeking judgment as a matter of law | Defendants opposed; Hurley produced no evidentiary materials required by Civ.R. 56(C) | Court: summary judgment denied — Hurley failed to meet initial evidentiary burden |
| Sufficiency of complaint (Civ.R. 12(B)(6)) | Hurley claimed multiple causes of action and building‑code violations supporting relief | Defendants argued complaint lacked factual allegations linking them to the injury or to the tavern and failed to state any cognizable claim | Court: complaint contained only bare conclusions and failed to plead facts that, if true, would entitle Hurley to relief; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (state standard for summary judgment and related principles)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (initial burden for summary judgment movant)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (evidentiary materials required to meet summary judgment burden)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App.3d 188 (12(B)(6) standard and pleading construction)