Mehman v. Noltemeyer
2017 Ohio 7416
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael J. Mehman sued Columbus police officers Sean Noltemeyer and Eric Houser alleging excessive force, false arrest/false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from an incident on June 20, 2012.
- Mehman originally filed suit (Case No. 13CVH-6834); defendants served requests for admissions in that case on January 30, 2014.
- Mehman voluntarily dismissed the first case without prejudice on July 18, 2014 and re-filed essentially the same complaint on April 1, 2015 (Case No. 15CV-2823).
- Defendants argued the unanswered requests for admissions from the first case were deemed admitted and therefore entitled them to summary judgment, including statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, holding the Civ.R. 36 admissions applied only to the then-pending action and that factual disputes (including Mehman’s affidavit) precluded immunity as a matter of law.
- Defendants appealed; the appellate court affirmed, concluding deemed admissions from the voluntarily dismissed suit could not be used in the re-filed action and genuine issues of material fact remained on immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of requests for admissions served in the voluntarily dismissed first action | Admissions from the first action should not be binding beyond the pending action, but Mehman also relied on his affidavit to oppose summary judgment | The unanswered requests for admissions served in the first action were deemed admitted and should be used in the re-filed action | Civ.R. 36 admissions are limited to the action pending at time of service; admissions from the dismissed case cannot be used in the re-filed action |
| Availability of withdrawal/amendment of prior admissions | Mehman argued withdrawal/amendment should be allowed to present the merits | Defendants argued admissions (if deemed) were conclusive and Mehman could not contradict them | Court noted trial judge has discretion under Civ.R. 36(B) to allow withdrawal, but found issue moot because prior admissions were not usable in the re-filed action |
| Statutory immunity under Ohio R.C. Chapter 2744 for officers | Mehman presented affidavit alleging force/wanton/reckless conduct, creating factual disputes | Officers argued no evidence of malicious purpose, bad faith, or wanton/reckless conduct and claimed immunity | Construing evidence in Mehman’s favor, genuine issues of material fact exist as to the immunity exception, so summary judgment on immunity was improper |
| Use of evidence from prior dismissed case to support summary judgment | Mehman urged the court not to consider prior-case admissions and relied on live-record evidence | Defendants asked the court to consider prior-case admissions as dispositive | Court refused to apply prior-case admissions to the re-filed case and considered evidence in the current record; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Cleveland, 151 Ohio App.3d 581 (de novo review of summary judgment standard)
- Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80 (police officers immune under R.C. 2744 unless acts were malicious, in bad faith, or wanton/reckless)
- Balson v. Dodds, 62 Ohio St.2d 287 (trial court may permit withdrawal/amendment of admissions to allow presentation of the merits)
- Climaco, Seminatore, Delligatti & Hollenbaugh v. Carter, 100 Ohio App.3d 313 (voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a disposition on the merits)
- Harrison v. Porsche Plus, 520 A.2d 346 (Rule 36 requests for admission apply only to the action pending at the time of service)
- Fieldcrest Cannon v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 124 N.C. App. 232 (deemed admissions from a dismissed action are not usable in a later action)
- Norrell v. Giles, 343 Ark. 504 (same: admissions deemed in a dismissed action have no effect in a subsequent action)