Winkle v. Co
2016 Ohio 6957
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Mark Winkle sued apartment owner/manager Prima (Thomas C. Co, Prima Management, TL Squared, Aim High) and neighbors Brittinie Amerman and David Hamilton alleging breach of contract, disability housing discrimination under R.C. 4112.02 (various subsections), mail theft, intimidation, and related claims arising from his tenancy at 1354 Ohmer St., Dayton.
- Winkle alleged he had a disability and claimed Prima promised an accommodation (a particular parking space) but later prevented its use; he also alleged other incidents (possible mail theft, vehicle damage, neighbor conduct).
- Amerman and Hamilton moved to dismiss; the trial court granted those motions on September 22, 2015 with Civ.R. 54(B) language; Winkle did not timely appeal those orders.
- Prima moved for summary judgment (filed within the court’s pretrial deadline). Prima supported the motion with an affidavit from Thomas Co stating Winkle never provided medical proof of disability and there was no designated handicapped space; Winkle submitted no affidavit or admissible evidence opposing summary judgment.
- Winkle sought leave to amend to add claims against Prima’s counsel and sought discovery sanctions/default judgment for alleged discovery abuses; the trial court denied leave to amend and denied default sanctions; the court granted Prima summary judgment on the disability/civil-rights claims and dismissed remaining claims.
- Winkle appealed; this court affirmed the trial court: summary judgment for Prima was proper because Winkle failed to present admissible evidence of a disability or other elements of an R.C. Chapter 4112 reasonable-accommodation claim, and this court lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier dismissals of Amerman and Hamilton for lack of a timely appeal; discovery sanction rulings were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in granting Prima summary judgment on R.C. 4112 disability/housing claims | Winkle argued Prima had notice/authority, discriminatory intent, and that summary judgment was premature | Prima argued plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of disability or of required elements for accommodation/disparate-treatment claims; supported motion with Co affidavit | Affirmed: summary judgment proper — Winkle presented no Civ.R. 56(E) evidence showing a disability or disputed material facts |
| Whether Prima needed leave to file summary judgment after plaintiff sought leave to amend | Winkle said court should not rule on motions while his motion to amend was pending | Prima noted its motion complied with the pretrial schedule and no leave was required | Denied: Prima timely filed within deadlines; no leave required; Winkle had opportunity to respond |
| Whether trial court erred in dismissing Amerman and Hamilton after motions to dismiss | Winkle contended he could sue them for acts alleged (including criminal acts) and court erred | Defendants argued motions to dismiss were properly granted; trial court entered final orders with Civ.R. 54(B) | Appeals of those dismissals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Winkle failed to timely appeal the Sept. 22, 2015 final orders |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying default judgment/sanctions for discovery/nonappearance and by denying leave to amend | Winkle argued opposing counsel obstructed discovery and lied; sought default and sanction relief | Prima showed discovery responses were timely or disputes unresolved procedurally (no certificate of impasse); court had broad discretion | No abuse of discretion: court reasonably denied harsh sanctions/default and properly denied amendment when appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 60 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 1991) (aggrieved party may bring independent civil action under R.C. 4112.99 for disability discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (three-step burden-shifting test for disparate-treatment claims)
- Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Assn., 760 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2014) (FHA/ADA reasonable-accommodation and reasonable-modification framework; elements include disability, request, notice, refusal, reasonableness, necessity)
- Smith v. Five Rivers MetroParks, 134 Ohio App.3d 754 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999) (summary-judgment standard cited)
- Buzzard v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 139 Ohio App.3d 632 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (types of material considered on summary judgment and need to incorporate other documents by affidavit)
- Toney v. Berkemer, 6 Ohio St.3d 455 (Ohio 1983) (standards for default judgment as discovery sanction)
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1989) (final order and Civ.R. 54(B) discussion)
- Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 1993) (standards for Civ.R. 54(B) certification and avoidance of piecemeal appeals)