Rayess v. McNamee
2014 Ohio 2210
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff M. Bassem Rayess, a foreign medical-school graduate, sued former counsel Cynthia McNamee and Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling (PS&E) for legal malpractice stemming from representation in 1993–1994 regarding alleged discriminatory testing by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG).
- Attorney-client relationship ended January 4, 1994; plaintiff alleges failures to investigate, advise about statutory and legal violations, and warn about limitations periods.
- Rayess filed the malpractice complaint on June 12, 2012 (more than 18 years after termination) and sought a stay pending related litigation; defendants moved for a 14-day extension to answer and then filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss as time-barred.
- The trial court denied the stay, allowed defendants to respond, and dismissed the complaint as barred by the one-year malpractice statute of limitations; Rayess’s motion for exemption from court costs was denied.
- On appeal, the Second District affirmed, finding (1) no abuse of discretion in granting the extension; (2) confidentiality-order extension improper and moot after dismissal; (3) malpractice claim time-barred because cognizable events occurred well before the filing; and (4) denial of fee exemption within trial court discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying default judgment and allowing defendants extra time to respond | Rayess: defendants gave no affidavit showing good cause; default judgment should have been entered | Defendants: timely motion for brief extension with counsel's explanation showed cause under Civ.R. 6(B)(1) | Court: No error — trial court did not abuse discretion in granting extension and permitting response |
| Whether court should extend a confidentiality order from unrelated ECFMG case to this case | Rayess: confidentiality order in ECFMG case should extend to defendants here | Defendants: they were not parties to the ECFMG case; no privity; confidentiality not applicable | Court: No error — extension denied; issue moot after dismissal |
| Whether malpractice complaint was barred by R.C. 2305.11(A) one-year limitations period | Rayess: accrual occurred June 3, 2010 (dismissal of his suit vs. ECFMG), so his malpractice suit was timely | Defendants: cognizable events (termination of retainer, plaintiff’s own 1995 discovery, prior suits/defenses) placed plaintiff on notice well before 2010 | Court: No error — complaint shows on its face that claims accrued earlier and action is time-barred |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying exemption from court costs | Rayess: submitted affidavit of indigency and prior exemptions in other courts; court should waive costs | Defendants: trial court can evaluate sufficiency of affidavit and past filings; may deny if affidavit deficient or filings frivolous | Court: No error — denial reasonable given affidavit gaps and court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter and Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio 1989) (defines when a malpractice claim accrues and what constitutes a cognizable event)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491, 849 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio 2006) (statute-of-limitations dismissal may be proper on Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when complaint conclusively shows claims are time-barred)
- Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488, 854 N.E.2d 487 (Ohio 2006) (an assertion of an affirmative defense can place a plaintiff on notice to pursue malpractice remedies)
- McDade v. Spencer, 75 Ohio App.3d 639, 600 N.E.2d 371 (Ohio Ct. App.) (malpractice accrual can be triggered by events that alert a reasonable person to possible attorney-caused injury)