 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Helman v. EPL Prolong9/26/2002
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded.
. This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. This is the second appeal arising from the underlying cause of action. See Helman v. EPL Prolong, Inc. (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 231, 743 N.E.2d 484. Here, Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the decision of the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas which denied them the class certification they sought against Defendants-Appellees. We are asked to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion when denying Appellants' motion for class certification. In making this decision, we must decide whether the trial court improperly relied upon the law of the case doctrine and whether it abused its discretion in applying the factors found in Civ.R. 23. We conclude that although reliance on the law of the case doctrine would have been wrong, the trial court did not rely on that doctrine. However, because we conclude the trial court incorrectly determined that individual issues predominate over issues common to the class and that denying class certification at this time is an abuse of discretion, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand this case for further proceedings.
. Appellants originally filed their complaint in 1997. Subsequently, they amended their complaint twice. The claims in the second amended complaint, operative at the time of this appeal, arose out of the Appellants' purchase of corporate stock subscriptions in Prolong Industries, Inc., during the years 1985-1987. That complaint alleged five causes of action: 1) breach of contract; 2) fraudulent conveyance; 3) breach of fiduciary duties; 4) breach of a novation; and, 5) fraud in the inducement. Upon a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed counts one, two and three of the complaint as time-barred by the statute of limitations, but allowed Appellants' claim of fraud in the inducement to proceed.
. Subsequently, Appellants moved for class certification pursuant to Civ.R. 7(B), Civ.R. 23(A), and Civ.R. 23(B). The trial court denied that motion, finding "many issues raised are unsupported by evidence, affidavit, or discovery", and, thus, Appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof pursuant to Civil Rule 23. Concurrent with the class certification motion, Appellants filed another motion to amend their complaint which the trial court denied. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal of that judgment. Shortly thereafter, the trial court granted a motion by Appellees which dismissed all but seven plaintiffs from the case. Appellants also filed a notice of appeal of that judgment. On appeal, Appellants did not raise the denial of class certification on the fourth and fifth causes of action.
. In Helman I, this court initially noted Appellants failed to argue the trial court erred when it dismissed some of the named plaintiffs and abandoned any error in that decision as they failed to raise it in any assignment of error. Helman, supra at 239-240. This court then concluded the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants' claims of breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance and breach of fiduciary duty as time barred by the statute of limitations.
. This court first concluded the doctrine of equitable estoppel may have tolled the statute of limitations for breach of contract. "It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the assurances made to appellants by the Sloans reasonably induced appellants to delay the filing of their claims until after the statute of limitations had run. Thus, dismissal on a statute of limitations basis was premature until these claims could be fully addressed, below." Id. at 247. It also concluded
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|