Loper v. Help Me Grow of Cuyahoga County
2018 Ohio 2401
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Latasha Loper sued Help Me Grow of Cuyahoga County (HMG), alleging wrongful denial of early intervention services and racial discrimination for her two minor children; she sought monetary and injunctive relief.
- HMG moved to dismiss asserting Loper failed to exhaust administrative remedies (no due process hearing under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-8-10), attaching an affidavit from its director summarizing referrals and evaluations.
- Record shows multiple referrals and evaluations (Battelle Developmental Inventory) with mixed results; CCBDD ultimately found both children ineligible in November 2015.
- The trial court converted HMG’s motion to a summary judgment motion (after noting affirmative-defense materials outside the complaint), gave Loper 14 days to respond, and she did not submit evidentiary materials.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for HMG on the ground Loper failed to exhaust administrative remedies; Loper appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly converted motion to summary judgment | Conversion was improper; Civ.R.12(B)(6) standard should apply | Conversion proper because affirmative defense relied on materials outside pleadings and parties were given notice | Conversion was proper; trial court gave reasonable notice and 14 days to respond |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on exhaustion grounds | DODD has no jurisdiction over discrimination; exhaustion not required | Ohio Adm.Code requires exhaustion of administrative remedies (due process hearing) for Part C disputes | Summary judgment affirmed: Loper failed to exhaust required administrative remedies before suing |
| Whether Loper could proceed pro se on behalf of her children | Loper argued she could represent her children pro se | HMG contended pro se representation by a parent for a child is generally barred | Court allowed Loper to proceed pro se for IDEA-related claims under Winkelman (parents have enforceable rights) |
| Whether trial court erred by not obtaining/considering Loper’s evidence | Court should have subpoenaed/obtained evidence (citing R.C. 2743.05) | Loper had opportunity under Civ.R.56 to present evidence but did not respond | Court did not err; R.C.2743.05 inapplicable and Loper failed to respond within afforded time |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1991) (distinguishing pleadings and matters outside the complaint)
- Jones v. Chagrin Falls, 77 Ohio St.3d 456 (Ohio 1997) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense)
- Petrey v. Simon, 4 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1983) (notice required when converting a motion to summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens in summary judgment)
- Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2007) (parents have enforceable rights under the IDEA and may proceed pro se)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (rationale for administrative-exhaustion doctrine)
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1938) (no judicial relief until administrative remedies exhausted)
- Sciko v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 83 Ohio App.3d 660 (Ohio App. 1992) (conversion to summary judgment when matters outside pleadings are presented)
- Pollock v. Kanter, 68 Ohio App.3d 673 (Ohio App. 1990) (reasonable notice requirement for conversion to summary judgment)
- Noernberg v. Brook Park, 63 Ohio St.2d 26 (Ohio 1980) (exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief)