White v. Cent. Ohio Gaming Ventures, L.L.C.
2019 Ohio 1078
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Darrell White sued Central Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC and Aristocrat Technologies after a casino slot machine displayed a multi-million-dollar jackpot on March 20, 2017, but he did not receive payment. He alleged negligent manufacture by Aristocrat and that Gaming Ventures rebooted/rigged the machine erasing the win.
- White proceeded pro se and filed numerous discovery-related motions and motions to join additional parties (including the Ohio Casino Control Commission).
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C) and moved to stay discovery; the trial court stayed discovery and later granted the 12(C) motion, entering judgment for defendants and deeming remaining motions moot.
- White appealed; appellees argued the appeal was untimely but the appellate court found the trial-court clerk never entered service under Civ.R. 58(B), so the appeal was timely.
- On the merits, the appellate court affirmed: it upheld the discovery stay and denial of discovery motions, found joinder of the Casino Control Commission inappropriate (claims against the state belong in Court of Claims), held the 12(C) dismissal precluded a trial, and concluded the dismissal was with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by staying discovery pending decision on Civ.R. 12(C) motion | White argued the stay prejudiced his ability to obtain evidence and was biased | Defendants argued the stay was appropriate because the 12(C) motion was dispositive and could render discovery unnecessary | Stay was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion; appeal overruled |
| Whether trial court erred in denying discovery requests (interrogatories, admissions, document production) | White argued the court improperly denied or failed to compel discovery | Defendants argued White failed to comply with Civ.R. 37 prerequisites and had not shown defendants failed to respond | Denial upheld; White did not demonstrate requisite efforts or show prejudice |
| Whether the Ohio Casino Control Commission should be joined as a defendant | White sought joinder to add claims against the Commission | Defendants and court noted joinder would improperly add the state agency and that money-damage claims against the state belong in Court of Claims | Joinder not permitted; any claims against the state belong in Court of Claims; assignment overruled |
| Whether dismissal on Civ.R. 12(C) required a trial or was with/without prejudice | White argued he was entitled to a trial and the court failed to state whether dismissal was with prejudice | Defendants argued 12(C) tests the complaint as a matter of law so no trial is required; a merits dismissal operates as with prejudice | Grant of Civ.R. 12(C) precluded a trial; dismissal was on the merits (with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator Milford, L.L.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 542 (Ohio 2015) (service under Civ.R. 58(B) controls appellate-timing tolling)
- In re H.F., 120 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2008) (untimely notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)