 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rhoades v. Ameritech Corp.12/15/2005
{ } Plaintiff-appellant Susan J. Rhoades (appellant) appeals from the trial court's decision denying her motion for relief from judgment. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm.
I.
{ } The tortured procedural history of the instant case will, for the most part, be omitted from this opinion; however, the following facts are relevant to the appeal. On April 10, 2003, appellant filed a claim alleging wrongful discharge and employment discrimination against her former employer, Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech), and medical malpractice and prescription fraud against Comprehensive Psychiatric Services (Comprehensive). Also included as defendants in this action were individual managers at Ameritech and various healthcare individuals associated with Comprehensive. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants piecemeal, by granting motions to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment. On August 11, 2004, the court granted summary judgment to the last of the Comprehensive defendants, in what became the first of the court's final appealable orders. On September 14, 2004, appellant filed an appeal with this court, which was dismissed as being untimely pursuant to App.R. 4(A), because it was filed outside of the 30-day time frame for filing an appeal. See Cuyahoga App. No. 85249. On January 3, 2005, appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which the court denied on January 14, 2005, stating that appellant "has merely re-stated her arguments put forth in her opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Relief under Civ.R. 60(B) is not available as a substitute for an appeal." Appellant filed a timely appeal from the court's decision to deny her motion for relief from judgment.
II.
{ } In her first and only assignment of error, appellant argues that "the trial court abused its discretion in failing to re-instate Plaintiff's claims pursuant to her Motion for Relief from Judgment relevant to Civ.R. 60B(5)." Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Comprehensive defendants and judgment on the pleadings to the Ameritech defendants. We are without jurisdiction to review the trial court's actions concerning summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, because the only final appealable order before us is the order denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). See State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 58.
{ } According to the Supreme Court of Ohio, to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, a "movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time *." GTE Automatic Electric, Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 150. In the instant case, appellant claims that she is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which reads, "any other reason justifying relief from the judgment." In Mt. Olive Baptist Church v. Pipkins Paints & Home Improvement Center, Inc. (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d 285, 287, we held that " lthough Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is frequently referred to as the 'catch all' provision, relief on this ground is to be granted only in extraordinary situations where the interest of justice calls for it." The trial court has discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a motion for relief from judgment. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17. As such, we will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding a Civ.R.
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.
|
|