2018 Ohio 171
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2018Background
- In May 2012 Riddick paid $200 to Key Decisions/Positive Choices for an alcohol/drug evaluation by counselor Owen Taylor to satisfy Michigan licensing requirements.
- Riddick claims Taylor fraudulently diagnosed him and failed to complete/state-mail Michigan-specific forms; he filed an ADAMHS grievance (unsuccessful) and later sued in June 2016 for breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, and vicarious liability.
- Defendants moved to dismiss fraud and IIED claims as time-barred; the court granted that motion.
- Riddick failed to respond to requests for admissions; the trial court deemed key admissions admitted (e.g., that no written contract existed and that Riddick refused to sign a release).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Riddick could not prove breach because he refused to sign the authorization required to release his evaluation to Michigan; derivative claims failed accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraud and IIED claims were time-barred | Riddick: discovery rule delayed accrual until Board decision or receipt of assessment in 2015/2012 | Defendants: claims accrued in May 2012 when diagnosis/incident occurred | Court: claims accrued May 30, 2012; dismissed as untimely under 4-year statute |
| Whether requests for admission should have been deemed admitted | Riddick: admissions harmed merits and withdrawal should be allowed; he lacked documents while awaiting tax returns | Defendants: Riddick failed to respond after multiple requests; admissions self-executing under Civ.R.36 | Court: admissions deemed admitted; denial to withdraw not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether discovery remained outstanding before summary judgment | Riddick: defendants failed to comply with discovery orders and deposition responses; prejudiced his ability to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: complied with court order; outstanding requests were answered or were vague | Court: no outstanding discovery that precluded summary judgment; no prejudice found |
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract was proper | Riddick: he paid and defendants breached by not providing forms/copies; no genuine issue of material fact | Defendants: release to Michigan was a material term; Riddick refused to sign authorization so defendants could not release forms | Court: summary judgment for defendants — no breach because Riddick refused to execute required release; derivative claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Battersby v. Avatar, Inc., 157 Ohio App.3d 648, 813 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (de novo review of Civ.R.12(B)(6) dismissal)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 605 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 1992) (Civ.R.12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1975) (standard for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal)
- Cundall v. U.S. Bank, 122 Ohio St.3d 188, 909 N.E.2d 1244 (Ohio 2009) (discovery rule; constructive knowledge starts limitations period)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (moving party's burden on summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)