Sanderfer v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.
2017 Ohio 1552
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Sanderfer worked as a CMHA maintenance worker from 2004 until her termination in December 2011 and refiled an April 24, 2015 complaint alleging sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
- The trial court held a case management conference and entered a January 11, 2016 trial order signed by counsel that governed summary-judgment practice in the case. Paragraph 3 required motions for summary judgment to be filed with a motion for leave and set responses due 10 days after filing whether or not leave had been ruled on.
- CMHA filed a motion for leave with an attached motion for summary judgment on April 18, 2016; Sanderfer did not file any response or request an extension.
- On June 8, 2016 the trial court granted CMHA’s motion for summary judgment as unopposed and dismissed Sanderfer’s claims with prejudice.
- Sanderfer appealed, arguing (1) the trial court’s 10-day response rule conflicted with Civ.R. 56, (2) CMHA filed its summary-judgment motion without leave of court, and (3) the court entered a “default” summary judgment without considering the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial order’s 10-day response deadline conflicted with Civ.R. 56 | Sanderfer: the court had to allow at least 14 days (post-amendment) to respond | CMHA: the court’s order controls unless timely challenged; Civ.R. 56 expressly permits differing local rules or court orders | Court: Overruled — Civ.R. 56 allows response deadlines by court order; Sanderfer had 51 days before grant and made no request for more time |
| Whether CMHA required express leave before filing a summary-judgment motion | Sanderfer: she waited for a ruling on the motion for leave and thus did not respond | CMHA: the trial order allowed filing with a motion for leave and required responses regardless of a ruling; courts may accept motions filed without express prior leave | Court: Overruled — order required responses whether or not leave was ruled on; court may accept a motion as leave |
| Whether the grant was a prohibited default judgment made without consideration of evidence | Sanderfer: the court granted judgment by default without addressing the merits | CMHA: the court’s entry indicates it construed evidence in plaintiff’s favor and found no genuine issue of material fact | Court: Overruled — trial court’s entry sufficiently shows consideration under Civ.R. 56 and Civ.R. 52 does not require findings for summary-judgment motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207, 436 N.E.2d 1001 (1982) (party must raise trial-court errors timely or they are waived on appeal)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (failure to object in trial court waives all but plain error on appeal)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977) (standard for granting summary judgment)