Ameritech Publishing, Inc. v. GriffinAmeritech Publishing, Inc. v. Griffin
Rendered on the 23rd day of October, 2009.
CAROLINE H. GENTRY, Atty. Reg. No. 0066138 and JENNIFER N. FULLER, Atty. Reg. No. 0080613, One South Main Street, Suite 1600, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
JAMES N. GRIFFIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0015917, 4 West Main Street, Suite 526, Springfield, Ohio 45502
Defendant-Appellant
DONOVAN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant James Griffin, appeals a decision of the Clark County Municipal Court, which sustained the motion for summary judgment of appellee Ameritech Publishing, Inc. on January 7, 2009. Griffin did not file a response to Ameritech’s motion for summary judgment, and the trial court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff was
I
{¶ 2} On August 14, 2008, Ameritech commenced an action on account against Griffin for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. Ameritech provided advertising services in its telephone directory for Griffin. Ameritech sought judgment in the amount of $12,581.31 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs. Griffin admitted Ameritech provided advertising, but denied that he owed Ameritech any money.
{¶ 3} We note that the trial court set an initial pretrial conference for November 13, 2008. On November 13, 2008, the trial court entered a pretrial order scheduling a second pretrial conference for January 15, 2009 and granting leave for the filing of motions for summary judgment. Responses to motions for summary judgment were “to be filed within the times allowed by Rule.”
{¶ 4}
{¶ 5} On December 9, 2008, Ameritech filed its motion for summary judgment. Griffin did not request an oral hearing on the summary judgment motion and gave no indication of an intention to file any response to Ameritech’s motion. Almost a month later, the trial court granted Ameritech’s motion on January 7, 2009. Griffin did not file
II
{¶ 6} Griffin raises one assignment of error for this appeal:
{¶ 7} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANT WHEN IT GRANTED THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED FOR RESPONSES TO THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.”
{¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a “trial court need not notify the parties of the date of consideration of a motion for summary judgment or the deadlines for submitting briefs and [
{¶ 9} Further, “a trial court is not required to schedule an oral hearing on every motion for summary judgment.” Hooten, 2003-Ohio-4829 at ¶14. The “hearing” contemplated by [
{¶ 10} Griffin argues that he was not required to respond to Ameritech’s motion until the day prior to the January 15, 2009 pretrial conference. He relies on the language of
{¶ 11} The pretrial conference scheduled by the trial court was not a “hearing” as defined in
{¶ 12} Because Griffin failed to request an oral hearing under
{¶ 13} We note that Griffin raises an additional argument for the first time in his reply brief. Griffin maintains that
{¶ 14} Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err when it sustained Ameritech’s motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
(Hon. William H. Wolff, Jr., retired from the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Caroline H. Gentry
Jennifer N. Fuller
James N. Griffin
Hon. Thomas E. Trempe