Leo. v. Burge Wrecking, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 2690
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Leo sued for negligence arising from a workplace injury on November 2, 2010, originally filing in 2012 and refiling on July 9, 2014.
- Plaintiff alleged employee Joe Liske caused the injury; discovery indicated Liske was employed by Acme Dismantling, LLC, not Burge Wrecking, LLC.
- Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his 2012 complaint (Jan. 14, 2014) and refiled in July 2014 without naming Acme. Discovery responses in October 2013 identified Acme as responsible for the jobsite and Liske’s employer.
- Burge moved for summary judgment in May 2016, arguing it was not Liske’s employer. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion but moved (June 14, 2016) for leave to substitute Acme Dismantling, LLC as the proper defendant and amend the complaint.
- The trial court denied leave to amend under Civ.R. 15(A) as untimely and the product of undue delay (noting plaintiff had long known Acme’s identity), and then granted summary judgment for Burge. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to substitute Acme Dismantling, LLC as defendant | Leo argued the amendment should be allowed because the amended claim arises from the same occurrence and would relate back under Civ.R. 15(C); Acme had notice when served with the original complaint | Burge argued plaintiff knew Acme was the employer as early as Oct. 2013, plaintiff delayed unduly (including after discovery and depositions), and amendment would be futile or prejudicial because of statute of limitations concerns | Court affirmed: denial of leave was within discretion because plaintiff’s motion was the product of undue delay with no justification; prejudice and timeliness were proper considerations, so summary judgment was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1996) (standards for appellate review of denial of leave to amend)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Meadors v. Zaring Co., 38 Ohio App.3d 97 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (untimely motion to amend may be denied absent justification)
- Darby v. A-Best Products Co., 102 Ohio St.3d 410 (Ohio 2004) (prejudice to nonmoving party is relevant when considering amendment under Civ.R. 15)