Messer v. Schneider Natl. Carriers
2016 Ohio 7050
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Messer was discharged by Schneider in 2009 after a failed drug test and originally sued in 2011; he voluntarily dismissed that action in 2012.
- Messer refiled the same claims on July 23, 2015 (Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-15-848682).
- Schneider moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred; Messer sought to have his filing deemed as of July 22, 2015 (the last day of the limitations period).
- Messer asserted his breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel claims carry an eight-year limitations period; Schneider argued a six-year period applied.
- Messer claimed an electronic filing attempt on July 22 was rejected by the clerk because a poverty affidavit lacked notarization and that the complaint should nevertheless be deemed filed that day.
- The trial court denied Messer’s request to deem the complaint filed July 22 and granted Schneider’s 12(B)(6) dismissal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Messer’s complaint is barred by the statute of limitations | Messer contends promissory estoppel and implied contract claims have an eight-year statute and thus are timely | Schneider contends those claims are subject to a six-year statute (R.C. 2305.07) and Messer filed one day late | Held: Claims are governed by six-year limitations; complaint filed one day late and is time-barred |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper because statute of limitations is an affirmative defense | Messer argues limitations should not be resolved on a 12(B)(6) motion | Schneider argues complaint facially shows it is time-barred so dismissal is proper | Held: Court may dismiss under 12(B)(6) when complaint on its face conclusively shows claim is time-barred; dismissal proper |
| Whether the clerk improperly rejected Messer’s e-filing and the filing should be deemed received July 22, 2015 | Messer claims an earlier attempted e-filing on July 22 was rejected for an unnotarized poverty affidavit and the filing should be deemed filed on July 22 | Schneider (and court) rely on record showing accepted filing on July 23 and no e-filing confirmation for July 22 | Held: Messer failed to produce evidence of a July 22 e-filing confirmation; court did not deem the complaint filed on July 22 |
| Whether the clerk exceeded authority by rejecting an unnotarized poverty affidavit such that relief is required | Messer argues clerk acted beyond authority and due process was violated, requiring the complaint be deemed filed | Schneider disputes entitlement; court found Messer produced no supporting record proof of the July 22 submission or required confirmation | Held: Court did not reach clerk-authority question substantively because Messer failed to prove timely electronic submission; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review of dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (complaint may be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when it conclusively shows the action is time-barred)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (accept factual allegations in complaint as true when evaluating 12(B)(6))
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (pleading standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co., 40 Ohio St.2d 55 (statute-of-limitations dismissal may be appropriate when action is clearly time-barred on its face)