American Hotel Group, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wyandotte Plaza, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16AP-296 (C.P.C. No. 14CV-7061)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 27, 2017
2017-Ohio-5520
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on June 27, 2017
On brief: David M. Lynch, for appellant. Argued: David M. Lynch.
On brief: Carpenter Lipps & Leland, LLP, Michael H. Carpenter, Katheryn M. Lloyd, and Michael N. Beekhuizen, for appellees. Argued: Katheryn M. Lloyd.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, American Hotel Group, LLC, appeals from a judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entering judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Wyandotte Plaza, LLC, Lawrence G. Rubin, and Wyandotte Commons Whitehall Limited Liability Company on American Hotel Grоup‘s claims of fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On July 8, 2014, American Hotel Group filed a complaint against appellees asserting clаims of fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. American Hotel Group also specifically included a jury demand in its complaint but did not submit a jury deposit at that time. Appellees initially responded to the complaint with a July 28, 2014 motion to dismiss. However, the trial court denied appellees’ motion to dismiss in a March 30, 2015 entry. Subsequently, on April 13, 2015, appellees filed an answer to the complaint. Appellees also included a jury demand in their answer, but they did not submit a jury deposit.
{¶ 3} On July 16, 2015, following a July 10, 2015 status conference, the trial court issued a journal entry setting the trial date fоr February 29, 2016 and setting the final pretrial conference for February 25, 2016.
{¶ 5} The trial court conducted the final prеtrial conference on Thursday, February 25, 2016. The next day, on Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:58 p.m., counsel for appellees sent an email to the trial court and to American Hotel Group indicating appellees would no longer seek a jury trial. On Sunday, February 28, 2016, the day before trial, American Hotel Group submitted an electronic filing electing to dismiss its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and proceed only on its fraud claim. Prior to the start of trial on Monday, February 29, 2016, American Hotel Group posted a $300 deposit with the Franklin County Clerk of Courts.
{¶ 6} The parties appeared for trial on Monday, February 29, 2016, and the trial court noted that appellees waived their jury demand the day after the final pretrial conference on Friday, February 26, 2016. The triаl court then stated that because American Hotel Group had not paid the jury demand by the Friday before the trial date, in violation of
{¶ 7} Following a four-day bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of appellees, journalizing its decision in a written decision dated March 17, 2016. That same day, the trial court issued a judgment entry dismissing American Hotel Group‘s case on the merits and entering final judgment for appellees. American Hotel Group timely appeals.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} American Hotel Group assigns the following error for our review:
The trial court committed error when the court denied American Hotel Group LLC its right to trial by jury.
III. Motion to Supplement the Record
{¶ 9} Before we address the merits of American Hotel Group‘s assignment of error, we must address its motion to supplement. Concurrent with its merit brief, American Hotel Group also filed with this court a motion to supplement the record with additional evidence allegedly showing the availability of prospective jurors on the morning of trial. More specificаlly, American Hotel Group seeks to supplement the record with an email from an employee of the clerk of court‘s office listing the cases for which jurors were pulled on the morning of February 29, 2016. American Hotel Group asserts this additional evidence tends to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting a jury trial to proceed because jurors were, indeed, available on the morning of trial.
{¶ 10}
If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated, the parties by
stipulation, or the trial cоurt, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified, filed, and transmitted. All other questions as to the form and content of the reсord shall be presented to the court of appeals.
Thus, as this court has previously noted, “pursuant to
{¶ 11} Here, it is undisputed that the documents with which American Hotel Group wishes to supplement the record were not before the trial court. McGeorge. Accordingly, we may not consider the new evidence submitted by American Hotel Group, and we deny its motion to supplement the record.
IV. Analysis – Compliance with Local Rule
{¶ 12} In its sole assignment of error, American Hotel Group argues the trial court erred when it denied American Hotel Group‘s request for a jury trial and instead proceeded to a bench trial.
{¶ 13} “Local court rules, requiring an advance deposit as security for the costs of a jury trial and providing that the failure of a party to advance such deposit constitutes a waiver of the right to a triаl by jury, are moderate and reasonable regulations of the right of trial by jury, and are constitutional and valid.” Walters v. Griffith, 38 Ohio St.2d 132 (1974), syllabus. A trial court retains discretion to grant or deny a request for a jury trial where a party fails to comply with the applicable local rule, and we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Hasford, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-249, 2008-Ohio-4897, ¶ 51. An abuse of discretion connotes a decision that was unreаsonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶ 14} At issue here,
{¶ 15} American Hotel Group relies on this court‘s decision in Hasford which held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting a jury trial to go forward where both parties hаd initially requested a jury demand, and, despite Hasford‘s initial failure to comply with
{¶ 16} Though we concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in Hasford in permitting a jury trial to proceed despite lack of strict compliance with
V. Disposition
{¶ 17} Based on the foregоing reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to a bench trial where American Hotel Group failed to timely submit a jury deposit in accordance with the applicable local rule. Having denied American Hotel Group‘s motion to supplement and having overruled American Hotel Group‘s sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed; motion to supplement denied.
BROWN and HORTON, JJ., concur.