2022 Ohio 4097
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On or about Sept. 28, 2017 Strother alleges he damaged his vehicle after driving over a recessed utility-hole cover.
- Strother initially sued (complaint filed Oct. 31, 2018) but voluntarily dismissed that action on Jan. 24, 2020.
- Under Ohio's savings statute Strother had one year from dismissal to refile; due date was Jan. 25, 2021 (Jan. 24 fell on Sunday).
- Strother's counsel says he placed the refiling in the Franklin County Municipal Court "drop box" on Jan. 25, 2021; the clerk did not time-stamp/docket it until Feb. 1, 2021.
- Ohio Bell moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred; the City moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds. The trial court granted both motions.
- On appeal the court affirmed dismissal as to Ohio Bell (complaint facially time-barred) but reversed the city's summary-judgment ruling and remanded (genuine issue whether filing occurred on Jan. 25 and whether equitable tolling applies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint against Ohio Bell was properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred | Strother: savings statute and equitable tolling apply; he refiled within the one-year savings period (placed complaint in drop box Jan. 25) | Ohio Bell: Complaint shows accrual Sept. 28, 2017 and filing Feb. 1, 2021 — beyond two-year limit; no exception pleaded in complaint | Affirmed as to Ohio Bell: complaint facially shows statute of limitations expired; extrinsic facts in response may not be considered on 12(B)(6) and plaintiff did not plead exceptions in complaint |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting the City's summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds | Strother: he filed (deposited) complaint in court-authorized drop box on Jan. 25, 2021; clerk's later time stamp resulted from court operations during COVID and equitable tolling should apply | City: certified filing date (Feb. 1) shows untimely refiling beyond the one-year savings period | Reversed as to City: factual dispute exists whether filing occurred Jan. 25; even assuming deposit in drop box, clerk delay is attributable to court (extraordinary circumstance) and plaintiff may have exercised reasonable diligence — remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standard for construing complaints on Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (presume factual allegations in complaint true on 12(B)(6))
- Schmitz v. NCAA, 155 Ohio St.3d 389 (2018) (statute-of-limitations defense may support dismissal when evident on face of complaint)
- Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 130 Ohio St.3d 156 (2011) (de novo review of 12(B)(6) dismissal and limitations analysis)
- State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324 (2006) (court may not consider evidence outside the complaint on 12(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (same rule barring extrinsic evidence on motion to dismiss)
- Zanesville v. Rouse, 126 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) (a document is filed when properly deposited with clerk; time stamp is evidence but not the cause of filing)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016) (delineation of diligence vs. extraordinary-circumstances prongs for tolling)