Serra v. Guitar Ctr., Inc.
2017 Ohio 7789
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In Dec. 2014 Serra attempted to buy a rare Gibson Les Paul via guitarcenter.com, received order confirmations, then emails stating the items were backordered and later that the orders were cancelled. Serra later purchased a guitar elsewhere for more money and sued.
- Serra sued Guitar Center, Inc. alleging breaches of contract and numerous CSPA violations tied to the online transactions for two guitars.
- Guitar Center, Inc. moved for an extension to answer (granted) and later moved for summary judgment, arguing the transactions were with its subsidiary Guitar Center Stores, Inc., not the parent company.
- Serra opposed summary judgment with emails, website records, trademark/registration records showing guitarcenter.com and trademarks registered to Guitar Center, Inc., and other documents suggesting the parent’s involvement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Guitar Center, Inc.; Serra appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court’s grant of extension of time to answer an abuse of discretion? | Serra: court should have denied extension; default judgment was appropriate. | Guitar Center: requested more time to respond to a large, 23‑count, 45‑page complaint. | No abuse; extension was reasonable given complaint length; no default. |
| Whether Guitar Center, Inc. is a proper defendant for the online transactions | Serra: evidence (emails, site records, trademark registrations) creates genuine issue that Guitar Center, Inc. was involved. | Guitar Center: parent corporation; its subsidiary (Guitar Center Stores, Inc.) ran ecommerce and was the entity connected to transactions. | Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists whether the parent was involved; summary judgment for parent improper. |
| Whether Serra was entitled to summary judgment that Guitar Center, Inc. was the transacting party | Serra: his evidence proved only one conclusion—that Guitar Center, Inc. transacted with him. | Guitar Center: disputes ownership/operation of site and which entity handled transactions. | Overruled: Serra not entitled to summary judgment because factual dispute remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s burden in summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (non‑moving party’s reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998) (parent corporation generally not liable for subsidiary’s acts)
- Bentley v. Grey Fox Homes, Ltd., 184 Ohio App.3d 276 (2009) (Civ.R. 6(B)(1) extension practice)
- Viock v. Stowe‑Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (6th Dist. 1983) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)