Premier Restoration & Mechanical Sys., Inc. v. Arlington Arms Apts., L.L.C., 2016 Ohio 1152

Premier Restoration sued Arlington Arms and Kensington for unpaid HVAC and plumbing repair services; complaint alleged an oral agreement and that Kensington owned Arlington Arms.
Arlington Arms defaulted; default judgment entered. Kensington defended and participated in discovery.
Trial court set an August 1, 2015 deadline for summary-judgment motions and a September 11, 2015 bench trial date.
On July 31, 2015 Premier filed a motion for leave to file a summary-judgment motion and the summary-judgment motion itself; Kensington did not respond.
On August 27, 2015 the trial court granted leave to file and, one minute later, granted summary judgment to Premier for $27,083.42 plus interest and costs.
Kensington appealed, arguing the court deprived it of due process by ruling before the local-rule response period ran and failing to independently assess the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated defendant's procedural due process by granting summary judgment immediately after granting leave to file the motion	Premier argued leave and judgment were properly granted; Kensington had notice and no response	Kensington argued it had no obligation to respond until leave was granted and the local rule allows 21 days to respond after leave, so ruling seconds later denied a fair opportunity to be heard	Reversed: court violated due process by ruling before the 21-day response period ran; summary judgment vacated and case remanded to allow Kensington to file opposition

Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 (2003) (procedural due process requires an opportunity to respond to summary-judgment motions)
Cheap Escape Co. v. Tri-State Constr., L.L.C., 173 Ohio App.3d 683 (2007) (when leave to file summary judgment is required, the nonmoving party’s response period begins only after leave is granted)