Wright v. Mirza
2017 Ohio 7183
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Rachel Wright and Alicia Wise-Davis refiled a medical-malpractice/wrongful-death suit on April 2, 2015 under Ohio’s savings statute after voluntarily dismissing an earlier 2011 action.
- Plaintiffs attempted certified-mail service on Dr. Farooq Mirza at two business addresses found on the Ohio Medical Licensure Board website (an Auburn Avenue office and The Jewish Hospital); both attempts failed and the clerk docketed notices of failed service.
- Plaintiffs made no further service attempts after the clerk’s May 22, 2015 notice of failure; more than ten months remained before the one-year service deadline in Civ.R. 3(A).
- Dr. Mirza answered on May 27, 2015 asserting insufficiency of service of process; he later submitted affidavits stating he had closed the Auburn Avenue office in March 2014, never worked at The Jewish Hospital, and had a long-standing residential address in Cincinnati.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against Dr. Mirza for lack of proper service; the plaintiffs appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempts to serve Mirza at business addresses satisfied due-process notice and conferred personal jurisdiction | Service by certified mail to addresses shown on the Medical Board website (and prior deposition-listed Auburn Ave. address) was reasonably calculated to notify Mirza | Service at those business addresses was not reasonably calculated because Mirza no longer worked at those locations; he was not served at his residence | Service was insufficient; business-address service did not comport with due process and did not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether prior deposition testimony or duties to update the Medical Board bound Mirza in the refiled action | Prior deposition (in the dismissed action) showed Auburn Ave. was his business address; he failed to update his address, so plaintiffs reasonably relied on it | After voluntary dismissal, the prior action is treated as never commenced, so prior deposition representations do not bind the refiled action; plaintiffs had notice of failed service and didn’t seek a current address | Prior-deposition statements about address did not bind Mirza in the refiled case; plaintiffs bore responsibility to secure service |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Medical Board website listings under R.C. duties to update address | The Board-listed addresses were reliable and Mirza had a statutory duty to keep them current, so service there was reasonable | The website contained disclaimers and the listed addresses were factually incorrect; Mirza had not worked at those locations for over a year | Website listings, especially when inaccurate, did not make business-address service reasonably calculated to give notice |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents Mirza from asserting insufficiency of service | Mirza’s failure to update his address and omission of an address in expert disclosure evinced an intent to frustrate service, so he should be estopped | Mirza did not induce plaintiffs’ reliance; he timely asserted insufficiency of service and there is no evidence he hid his residential address | Equitable estoppel does not apply; no evidence Mirza induced plaintiffs to rely or concealed his residence |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403 (business-address certified-mail service fails due process when defendant only sparsely visits that business)
- Zimmie v. Zimmie, 11 Ohio St.3d 94 (voluntary dismissal treats prior action as if never commenced)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 71 Ohio St.3d 26 (elements and purpose of equitable estoppel)