Omobien v. Flinn
2021 Ohio 2096
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On March 11, 2016, Sharon Flinn allegedly rear-ended Edward Omobien.
- The Omobiens previously sued Flinn; that earlier action was dismissed without prejudice on May 8, 2019 (plaintiffs contended refiled within savings period).
- Plaintiffs refiled a personal-injury complaint on May 8, 2020 asserting negligence and loss of consortium.
- Flinn moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) on June 8, 2020, arguing the two-year statute of limitations barred the suit and plaintiffs failed to plead the savings statute.
- The trial court ordered a response (July 13, 2020, 14 days); plaintiffs did not respond; the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on August 19, 2020.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding plaintiffs bore the burden to plead any savings exception, McKinley permits 12(B)(6) dismissal when a complaint is conclusively time‑barred, and COVID tolling did not excuse failure to meet the court‑ordered response deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was improper because plaintiffs refiled within the one‑year savings period (R.C. 2305.19(A)). | Omobien: earlier suit was dismissed without prejudice; refiled within one year, so savings statute saves claim. | Flinn: complaint shows cause arose 3/11/2016 and was filed 5/8/2020; plaintiffs did not plead the savings statute; action is time‑barred on its face. | Court: Plaintiffs must plead the savings exception; trial court cannot take judicial notice of a separate dismissed case; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether statute‑of‑limitations defense must be raised in an answer rather than a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. | Omobien: such defenses should be in a responsive pleading, per earlier Ninth District authority. | Flinn: Ohio Supreme Court precedent (McKinley) allows 12(B)(6) dismissal when complaint is conclusively time‑barred on its face. | Court: McKinley controls; 12(B)(6) dismissal appropriate when complaint demonstrates the claim is time‑barred. |
| Whether COVID‑19 tolling (Am.Sub.H.B.197 and Ohio Supreme Court tolling order) tolled the court‑ordered response period and precluded dismissal. | Omobien: tolling applied from March 9–July 30, 2020, so the response deadline was tolled and dismissal was premature. | Flinn: HB197 tolled statutory deadlines only; the Supreme Court order did not excuse compliance with court orders setting case‑specific deadlines. | Court: Tolling statutes/orders do not apply to deadlines imposed by court order; the July 13 deadline was valid and dismissal was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (Ohio 1973) (pleader must assert on the face of the complaint when an exception to the statute of limitations applies).
- Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (Ohio 2011) (complaint may be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when it is conclusively time‑barred on its face).
- In re Tolling of Time Requirements Imposed by Rules Promulgated by the Supreme Court and Use of Technology, 158 Ohio St.3d 1447 (Ohio 2020) (Supreme Court tolling order implementing HB197 and setting scope of tolling for rule‑based deadlines).
- O'Keeffe v. McClain, 158 Ohio St.3d 1478 (Ohio 2020) (Supreme Court order does not apply to deadlines set by court order).
- In re J.C., 186 Ohio App.3d 243 (9th Dist. 2010) (court may take judicial notice of proceedings in the same case but not of proceedings in other cases).