2020 Ohio 3950
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In May 2019 Amber R. Vanek (individually and as administrator of Paisley Rae‑Gene Vanek’s estate), Joshua Vanek, Tamra Bell, and Jason Bell sued Geauga Soil & Water Conservation District and employee Gail Prunty for negligence and wrongful‑death after a motor vehicle collision.
- Prunty moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting political‑subdivision employee immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- The Bells opposed and moved for leave to file a first amended complaint; the trial court granted leave on November 19, 2019 and found Prunty’s motion for judgment on the pleadings moot; the Bells then filed the amended complaint.
- Prunty appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not addressing the merits of her immunity motion and that the court’s order denied her the benefit of the alleged immunity, making the order final and appealable.
- The Bells (appellees) argued the trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order and thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
- The Ninth District held the order was not a final, appealable order because the motion for judgment on the pleadings was rendered moot (not denied) when the original complaint was supplanted by the amended complaint; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s grant of leave to amend (and ruling motion moot) is a final, appealable order denying the benefit of political‑subdivision immunity | The Bells: order is not final/appealable; no denial of immunity occurred | Prunty: granting leave effectively deprived her of immunity benefits and thus is a final, appealable order | Court: Not final — the motion became moot when the amended complaint replaced the original; immunity was not denied and could be asserted against the amended complaint; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23 (2013) (Supreme Court held that denial of leave to file an amended answer asserting political‑subdivision immunity is a final, appealable order)
- Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007) (same principle that denial of immunity motion constitutes a final, appealable order)
- Sterner v. Sterner, 85 Ohio App.3d 513 (1993) (an amended pleading substitutes for and supersedes the original pleading)