2022 Ohio 3695
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Williams, an Ohio resident, worked for MJS Enterprises (Parkersburg, WV) as an ambulette driver beginning August 2017 and alleges he was effectively discharged in September 2017 after requesting additional training as an accommodation for disabilities.
- Original complaint alleged events occurred in Wood County, West Virginia; Williams filed a first amended complaint alleging all material events occurred in Washington County, Ohio.
- MJS filed a Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss the original complaint (including a 12(B)(2) personal-jurisdiction defense). After Williams amended, MJS filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint but omitted a 12(B)(2) defense and asserted a statute-of-limitations defense among others.
- The trial court dismissed the case, finding alternatively that it lacked personal jurisdiction over MJS and that the claim was time-barred under West Virginia’s two-year statute (applying Ohio’s borrowing statute).
- On appeal the Fourth District reversed: it held MJS waived the personal-jurisdiction defense by failing to reassert it against the amended complaint, and the trial court improperly relied on evidence outside the complaint to apply the foreign statute of limitations without converting the motion to summary judgment and giving notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MJS waived lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense by omitting it from its motion to dismiss the amended complaint | Williams: MJS waived 12(B)(2) by not raising it against the amended complaint | MJS: defense preserved because it raised 12(B)(2) in its motion to dismiss the original complaint | Court: MJS waived the defense; an amended complaint mooted the original motion and Civ.R. 12(G)/(H) required reassertion or waiver |
| Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred was proper when the trial court relied on evidence outside the complaint to apply West Virginia’s limitations period | Williams: Ohio law/limitations govern; complaint timely; court cannot rely on outside evidence without proper conversion/notice | MJS: evidence shows accrual in WV so WV two-year limit applies; trial court may consider discovery and convert to summary judgment | Court: Trial court erred—it considered extraneous evidence without notifying parties or complying with Civ.R. 56; must either exclude the evidence or convert the motion and give notice/opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154 (Ohio 1984) (methods for acquiring personal jurisdiction and waiver principles)
- Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716 (3d Cir. 1982) (policy against tardy assertion of personal-jurisdiction defenses under Rule 12)
- Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co., 40 Ohio St.2d 55 (Ohio 1974) (statute-of-limitations dismissal proper only when complaint conclusively shows claim is time-barred)
- Schmitz v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn., 122 N.E.3d 80 (Ohio 2018) (affirmative defenses typically rely on matters outside the complaint)
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 692 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1998) (notice requirement when converting a dismissal motion into summary judgment)
- Lang v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XI A LP, 68 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (trial court may not convert a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to summary judgment sua sponte without notice)
- Combs v. Internatl. Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (discussion of borrowing statutes and accrual-based approaches)