 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ucker v. Taylor3/5/1991
WILLIAM J. MARTIN, Judge.
This is a timely appeal by the plaintiff, David A. Ucker, M.D., from the August 1, 1990 judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court granting the defendants' Civ.R. 12(3)(2), (5), and (6) motion to dismiss, filed on July 12, 1990, under a "special appearance" only to contest jurisdiction.
Defendant Timothy J. Taylor at all relevant times was a resident of the state of Michigan and licensed attorney at law there. With reference to this action, he acted as an agent of his Michigan law firm. The plaintiff is a licensed medical doctor and resident of Ohio.
Plaintiff circulated advertisements nationwide in one or more legal publications outlining his professional background in certain types of medical malpractice cases and offering his services as an expert witness. On or about December 8, 1988, and in response to an advertisement, the defendants contacted plaintiff by letter requesting his services as an expert to review scertain medical malpractice case in Michigan in which defendants were then serving as counsel. The plaintiff responded also by letter on or about December 14, 1988, outlining his terms for such employment (i.e., $200 per hour with a $400 advance deposit; and $750 per half-day deposition if conducted in Columbus).
Around December 19, 1988, defendants tendered the $400 advance deposit and requested that the plaintiff review the malpractice file and render a written opinion. During late December 1988 through early January 1989, plaintiff expended his time to review the case and issue his opinion letter. A fee of $1,100 was charged to the defendants based upon five and one-half hours of work.
It is not disputed that on January 11, 1989, the defendants traveled to Columbus, Ohio, and then conducted a video deposition of plaintiff for Michigan trial purposes. Plaintiff charged an additional $750 for this service. Apparently prior to conducting the deposition on that date, the defendants paid an additional $450 to plaintiff on his fees. The total fee claimed by plaintiff amounted to $1,850, reduced by defendants' payment of $940, leaving a balance allegedly owed of $910.
When this balance remained unpaid, plaintiff filed suit in the Franklin County Municipal Court for alleged breach of contract on June 27, 1990. Ultimately, the trial court granted the defendants' motion, and dismissed the case apparently concluding that the defendants had not transacted business in Ohio sufficient for in personam jurisdiction to attach, and it cited as authority this court's decision in Ohio State Tie & Timber, Inc. v. Paris Lumber Co. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 236, 8 OBR 309, 456 N.E.2d 1309.
Plaintiff raises two assignments of error, to wit:
"I. The trial court erred in finding that defendants were not `transacting any business in this state' within the meaning of ORC 2305.382(A)(1).
"II. The trial court's finding that defendants, involvement with the state of Ohio did not constitute transacting any business in this state was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence."
As these assignments of error are interrelated, they will be addressed together. The plaintiff argues that the trial court's conclusion that the defendants, conduct did not constitute the transaction of any business in Ohio and, therefore, he had no minimum contacts with this state, is erroneous. We agree.
Shortly before the briefing of this case, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case of Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 78, 559 N.E.2d 477, and therein discussed the phrase "transactinsany business in thi
Page 1 2 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|