Rutti v. Dobeck
2017 Ohio 8737
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rutti sued Dobeck for negligence (auto accident on/around Aug 18, 2014) and sought punitive damages; complaint ultimately filed Nov 4, 2016.
- Dobeck moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for negligence; motion was unopposed.
- The trial court granted the unopposed 12(B)(6) motion, dismissed the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, and denied reconsideration.
- Rutti alleged in his complaint that he originally submitted the complaint via the county e-filing system on Aug 13, 2016, but the system rejected it as “corrupted” on Aug 15, 2016, and he claims he received no notice of the rejection.
- The Cuyahoga County Temporary Administrative Order (TAO) governing e-filing provides that a submission is not filed until the clerk accepts it; rejected submissions are not part of the official record, and the TAO permits, but does not guarantee, that a court may deem a document filed as of the electronic transmission date for certain technical failures.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, concluding the complaint facially showed it was filed after the limitations period because a rejected e-file is not accepted as filed and the operative filing date was Nov 4, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute-of-limitations defense may be decided on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion | Rutti: facts show timely electronic submission on Aug 13, 2016; rejection was technical, so complaint should be timely | Dobeck: complaint on its face shows it was not accepted until Nov 4, 2016, so barred | Court: 12(B)(6) dismissal proper when complaint facially shows it is time-barred; here it does |
| Whether a rejected e-file can be treated as filed for statute-of-limitations purposes | Rutti: rejected submission should be deemed filed (or at least presents factual issue) because of technical corruption and lack of notice | Dobeck: TAO and precedent treat rejected submissions as not filed; filer bears burden to confirm acceptance | Court: TAO shows rejected submissions are not part of the record; filer bears duty to monitor acceptance; permissive relief for technical failures does not guarantee relief for jurisdictional deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Assn. for Defense of Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116 (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (12(B)(6) — plaintiff must show any set of facts entitling to relief)
- Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491 (complaint may be dismissed under 12(B)(6) if it conclusively shows timeliness problem)
- Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co., 40 Ohio St.2d 55 (statute-of-limitations dismissal on the face of the complaint)
- Garofalo v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95 (presumption of truth for complaint allegations and reasonable inferences for nonmoving party)