Kuczirka v. Ellis
2018 Ohio 728
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Peter Kuczirka, as administrator of Trina Kuczirka’s estate, filed a refiled medical-malpractice complaint on August 3, 2012.
- Defendants Dr. Cecilia Ellis and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates of Akron answered the refiled complaint (Aug. 31, 2012).
- Nearly a year later defendants moved to dismiss, arguing service in the original 2009 action was improper, service was never perfected within Civ.R. 3(A)’s one-year window, and the refiled case was therefore time-barred.
- The trial court initially denied the motion, later stayed the case, then reactivated it in 2017 and granted defendants’ motion, dismissing with prejudice and citing Hubiak and Suiter.
- On appeal the Ninth District held the motion, filed after answers, was effectively a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court improperly relied on facts outside the pleadings (the prior-case record) when dismissing.
- The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, concluding dismissal was error because the record did not permit consideration of matters outside the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle for defendants’ challenge to service/time-bar | Kuczirka argued defendants waived any pre-answer Civ.R.12 defenses by answering; dismissal improper | Defendants argued improper service in original action, failure to perfect service within one year, and thus dismissal warranted | Motion filed after answers must be treated as Civ.R.12(C) judgment on the pleadings; dismissal cannot rest on facts outside the pleadings |
| Whether trial court could resolve statute-of-limitations/savings issues by considering prior-case record not in pleadings | Kuczirka: pleadings do not establish statute-of-limitations bar; court may not consider other-case records on a 12(C) motion | Defendants: prior-case procedural history shows savings statute inapplicable and refiled suit time-barred | Court held trial court improperly relied on matters outside the pleadings; because the pleadings did not conclusively show the savings statute did not apply, dismissal was error |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (court must examine journal and proceedings below to ascertain basis of lower court judgment)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (Civ.R.12(B) defenses must be raised before pleading or are waived)
- Lin v. Gatehouse Constr. Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96 (8th Dist. 1992) (a motion to dismiss filed after pleadings is properly treated as a Civ.R.12(C) motion)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (1973) (scope of review on judgment on the pleadings limited to allegations in the pleadings)
- State ex rel. Mancino v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 151 Ohio St.3d 35 (2017) (post-answer motion to dismiss should be treated as judgment on the pleadings)
- In re J.C., 186 Ohio App.3d 243 (2010) (a court may take judicial notice of proceedings in the immediate case but not in other cases)