Whitehead v. Skillman Corp.
2014 Ohio 4893
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Whitehead filed a March 2, 2012 complaint alleging injury on May 23, 2011 from school district construction; Skillman named as defendant and John Doe Nos. 1–20 were later identified as unknown entities.
- Ferguson Construction Co. was substituted for John Doe No. 1 after Ferguson allegedly created the hazard; Ferguson was served Oct. 17, 2013.
- Ferguson moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the two-year personal injury statute had run; the trial court granted the motion based on service timing.
- Original complaint was filed within the statute of limitations, but Ferguson was not served within one year of the original filing; the court concluded Ferguson was improperly named outside the window.
- Whitehead argued the date of Ferguson’s service could be gleaned from the docket, potentially allowing relation back under Civ.R. 15(C); the court disagreed, noting Civ.R. 15(C) requires Civ.R. 15(D) and Civ.R. 3(A) compliance.
- The court ultimately held the trial court could take judicial notice of its docket, but Civ.R. 15(C) does not apply here and service was untimely; judgment on the pleadings was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 15(C) relation back applies to Ferguson | Whitehead contends docket-based timing allows relation back | Ferguson argues no relation back without Civ.R. 15(D) compliance and timely service | Relation back does not apply; service untimely |
| Whether Civ.R. 3(A) service requirements were met | Original complaint filed timely; later service should relate back | Service not within one year; Civ.R. 3(A) unmet | Service within one year not satisfied; JOP affirmed |
| Whether trial court could rely on its docket to resolve service timing | Court properly took judicial notice of its docket; no impact on outcome beyond service timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Indus. Risk Insurers v. Lorenz Equip. Co., 69 Ohio St.3d 576 (1994 Ohio) (trial court may take judicial notice of its own docket)
- Mansour v. Croushore, 194 Ohio App.3d 819 (12th Dist. 2011) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) notice of proceedings permissible)
- Anetomang v. OKI Sys. Ltd., 2012-Ohio-822 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-1182) (Civ.R. 12(C) use of docket acceptable)
- Erwin v. Bryan, 125 Ohio St.3d 519 (2010 Ohio) (Civ.R. 15(D) requirements for unknown defendants)
- LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 324 (2008-Ohio-3921) (relation back requires Civ.R. 15(D) compliance)
- Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co., Div. of Reliance Elec. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 57 (1989 Ohio) (Civ.R. 15(C) relation back with unknown/ fictitious defendant)
- Mardis v. Meadow Wood Nursing Home, 2010-Ohio-4800 (12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-04-007) (unknown defendant; Civ.R. 15(D) requirements for service)
- Golden v. Milford Exempted Village School Bd. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-3418 (12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2008-10-097) (Civ.R. 12(C) motion standards)