Ron Christopher Co., Inc. v. Borruso
2017 Ohio 9033
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Ron Christopher Co., Inc. sued defendant Anthony Borruso for breach of contract and sought fees; service was returned April 29, 2016.
- Borruso failed to timely answer; plaintiff moved for default judgment but court accepted an untimely answer and denied the default motion as moot.
- Plaintiff served discovery (including requests for admissions); Borruso did not respond to discovery or to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on January 17, 2017, relying partly on deemed admissions under Civ.R. 36; Borruso filed no opposition and the trial court granted summary judgment for $66,400 plus interest on February 23, 2017.
- On March 10, 2017 Borruso filed a Civ.R. 60(B)(1) motion asserting excusable neglect (miscalendaring the response deadline; an associate failed to serve responses to requests for admissions) and claiming a meritorious Florida-law defense; the trial court denied relief.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding Borruso’s repeated missed deadlines and lack of special circumstances did not demonstrate excusable neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borruso established excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) to set aside summary judgment | Plaintiff argued Borruso had notice and failed to oppose; plaintiff relied on deemed admissions and entitlement to judgment | Borruso argued miscalendaring and an associate’s failure to serve discovery responses constituted excusable neglect and he had a meritorious defense | Court held Borruso failed to show excusable neglect or special circumstances; repeated missed deadlines showed disregard for judicial process and 60(B) relief was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (inaction is not excusable neglect when it amounts to complete disregard for the judicial system)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (Ohio 1980) (excusable neglect inquiry is fact-specific; Civ.R. 60(B) remedial and liberally construed)
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (if movant fails any of the three GTE requirements, motion must be overruled)
- Griffey v. Rajan, 33 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1987) (trial court’s Civ.R. 60(B) ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion)