2019 Ohio 4284
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Oct. 2015 motor-vehicle collision: Mendoza (insured with Progressive; Medicaid beneficiary) vs. Seger (allegedly uninsured). Mendoza alleges injuries from Seger’s negligence.
- Mendoza originally filed suit in 2017 and later refiled on Nov. 30, 2018 in Lucas C.P. No. CI0201804492 naming Seger, Progressive (UM/UIM claim), and Ohio Dept. of Medicaid (subrogation interest).
- Progressive answered, asserted a statute-of-limitations affirmative defense, and later moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C), attaching documents from Mendoza’s 2017 case for the first time.
- Trial court initially denied the motion, then on reconsideration granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the refiled action with prejudice after considering the extra-pleading exhibits.
- On appeal, Mendoza argued the trial court improperly relied on materials outside the pleadings and that, on the face of the complaint, her claims (including claims against defaulting Seger and Medicaid’s subrogation interest) were not conclusively time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Civ.R. 12(C) motion may be granted based on materials outside the pleadings | Mendoza: court may not consider extraneous exhibits; must accept pleadings as true | Progressive: prior-case documents show refile was untimely under R.C. 2305.19 | Court: Reversed — trial court erred by considering matters beyond the pleadings on a 12(C) motion |
| Whether the refiled complaint was time-barred under the savings statute | Mendoza: dismissal paperwork and court direction produced a Dec. 7, 2017 dismissal date, making the Nov. 30, 2018 refiling timely | Progressive: refile occurred after the one-year savings period; attached 2017 entries show earlier dismissal date | Court: On the face of the pleadings the statute-of-limitations defense is not conclusively established; dismissal improper |
| Whether trial court could dismiss claims against defaulting Seger and Medicaid sua sponte | Mendoza: Seger defaulted (waived SOL defense); Medicaid has subrogation interest; sua sponte dismissal without notice/opportunity improper | (No substantive defendant argument preserved) | Court: Not reached on merits; noted sua sponte dismissal generally requires notice and opportunity; reversal employed without resolving plain-error question |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 297 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1973) (standard for Civ.R. 12(C) review; questions of law only)
- Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 92 Ohio St.3d 574, 752 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 2001) (treats Civ.R. 12(C) as belated Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376, 433 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 1982) (statute-of-limitations dismissal is improper unless complaint shows on its face it is time-barred)
- McMullian v. Borean, 167 Ohio App.3d 777, 857 N.E.2d 180 (6th Dist. 2006) (court may not consider matters outside the pleadings on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion)
- Battersby v. Avatar, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 648, 813 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio App.) (pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party on 12(C))
- Piersant v. Bryngelson, 61 Ohio App.3d 359, 572 N.E.2d 800 (8th Dist. 1989) (trial court may not convert a Civ.R. 12(C) motion into summary judgment without proper procedure)