 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bozeman v. Wendy's International8/21/2001
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
On December 20, 1999, Nathan Bozeman filed a document entitled "Pro Se Civil Action Complaint for Negligence" in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Bozeman alleged that he had been seriously injured when he fell as a result of an accumulation of hand soap on the floor of the restroom of a Wendy's restaurant in Columbus.
In conformance with practice upon the filing of a civil complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, a case scheduling order was generated. The original case scheduling order in this case set forth certain deadlines, including, inter alia: a discovery cut-off date of October 9, 2000; dispositive motions to be filed by September 25, 2000; and, decisions on motions to be rendered by November 20, 2000.
Following service of process on January 5, 2000, Wendy's International, Inc. ("Wendy's") ultimately filed an answer on March 31, 2000, by which it denied liability on several bases. The answer's certificate of service indicates that it was mailed to defendant on the same March 31 date it was filed. Several days later, on April 5, 2000, Mr. Bozeman filed a document entitled "Pro se plaintiff's motion for leave of court to file motion for default judgment out of rule."
Soon thereafter, on April 10, 2000, appellant filed a motion requesting a continuance of all remaining scheduling dates established via the case scheduling order when he filed the lawsuit. In support of this motion, he relied primarily upon his "pending" motion for default judgment.
Wendy's filed a memorandum opposing the latter motion. Wendy's pointed out that no such default motion was pending; what appellant had filed was a document requesting "leave to file" such a motion.
At the suggestion of defense counsel, the trial court construed appellant's motion as a Loc.R. 39.04 motion to amend the original case schedule. On May 10, 2000, the trial court journalized an entry overruling Mr. Bozeman's motion seeking a continuance of the original deadlines set by the case scheduling order. In so ruling, the trial court made a specific finding, required pursuant to Loc.R. 39.04, that appellant "failed to show good cause" for the requested continuances.
On August 24, 2000, appellant filed a document entitled "supplemental joint disclosure of witnesses of plaintiff," some of whom included "any/all employees of Wendy's working" at the Wendy's location where he fell on the date of the incident.
Wendy's pursued discovery by use of interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Mr. Bozeman attempted discovery, including a "request for production of documents and things for inspection," and "requests for admission " mailed to defense counsel on August 29, 2000, and filed with the court on August 31.
Wendy's conducted a videotaped deposition of appellant on September 7, 2000, when he was then incarcerated at the Noble Correctional Institution. Although the videotape was evidently transcribed, at least in part, the transcript itself is not included in the record.
On September 22, 2000, Wendy's filed a motion for summary judgment, relying primarily upon Mr. Bozeman's deposition. In turn, Mr. Bozeman filed a memorandum contra the summary judgment motion and attempted to pursue further discovery. Specifically, on October 10, 2000, he filed a motion to compel discovery, essentially arguing that the discovery responses he had received were vague, incomplete, or otherwise inadequate.
On October 16, 2000, counsel for Wendy's filed a motion to strike Mr. Bozeman's memorandum contra its motion for summary judgment. In t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|