2020 Ohio 854
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Steven Vogel was Medina's chief building official; he was fired in December 2013 and newspapers published stories about his termination.
- Defamation/libel/false-light claims have a one-year statute of limitations; the allegedly defamatory publications were in December 2013.
- Vogel first sued in Cuyahoga County (Dec. 2014), voluntarily dismissed (Feb. 2016), then refiled in federal court (Feb. 2017) using Ohio’s savings statute, adding federal claims.
- The federal court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendants on Vogel’s federal claims and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice (Feb. 2018); Vogel filed a new state action in Medina (Mar. 2018).
- Defendants moved for dismissal/summary judgment as time-barred; the trial court converted the motion to summary judgment, found Vogel’s libel/defamation/false-light claims untimely, and granted judgment for defendants; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) tolled the limitations period so Vogel could refile state claims after federal dismissal | Artis means §1367(d) “stops the clock” while claims are pending in federal court and for 30 days after; Vogel timely refiled within 30 days | §1367(d) only tolls an existing period of limitations; here the one-year period had expired before Vogel filed in federal court, so there was nothing to toll | Court: §1367(d) did not apply because Vogel’s one-year limitations ran before the federal filing; claims were time-barred; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Ohio’s savings statute (R.C. 2305.19) makes the federal complaint relate back to the original state filing (i.e., preserves the limitations period) | Vogel: R.C. 2305.19 permits refiling and, under Frysinger, the new filing relates back to the original filing date for limitations purposes | Defendants: The savings statute is a “grace period,” not a tolling statute; it was already used when Vogel refiled in federal court, and it cannot be invoked again to extend limitations | Court: Rejected Frysinger dicta as controlling; R.C. 2305.19 does not operate as a toll that §1367(d) could toll here; Vogel exhausted the savings statute earlier, so claims untimely |
| Whether the court should construe the statutes to avoid the perceived unfairness of the result | Vogel: Holding is unfair, contrary to §1367(d)’s purpose and Artis, and penalizes plaintiffs who use the savings statute to pursue federal claims | Defendants: Courts cannot rewrite statutes; statutory text controls; policy arguments cannot override clear statutory language | Court: Acknowledged harshness but refused to rewrite statutes; statutory text does not permit relief, so appellate judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) (held §1367(d) is a “stop the clock” toll while claims are pending in federal court)
- Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003) (explains §1367(d) promotes fair administration by tolling state limitations during federal proceedings)
- Frysinger v. Leech, 32 Ohio St.3d 38 (1987) (stated that when R.C. 2305.19 applies a new action relates back to prior filing date for limitations — treated as dicta here)
- Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 148 Ohio St.3d 483 (2016) (discusses when §1367 applies; held claims not pending in federal court so tolling did not apply)
- Reese v. Ohio State Univ. Hosps., 6 Ohio St.3d 162 (1983) (states R.C. 2305.19 is not a tolling statute but a refile “grace period”)
- Thomas v. Freeman, 79 Ohio St.3d 221 (1997) (R.C. 2305.19 may be used only once)