Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 13, 2006

You've sued three defendants, and the trial court's granted one of them a summary judgment.  Later on, you voluntarily dismiss the case under Rule 41(A)(1).  What happens to the summary judgment?

The Supreme Court dodged a case this week which would have ended some confusion on the matter.  A number of courts, including ours, have held that unless the court includes Rule 54(B) language in the order granting summary judgment, making it a final appealable order, the order becomes a nullity when the voluntary dismissal is filed.  What's more, the plaintiff can then refile, and the previous summary judgment isn't res judicata.  (It works the other way, too, as this case shows; if the plaintiff dismisses and refiles, a denial of summary judgment in the lawsuit's previous incarnation doesn't preclude the court from granting it the second time around.)

But here's where it gets weird:  that applies only if the dismissal entry specifies that you're dismissing the whole case.  If you specify that you're dismissing only the remaining defendants -- the ones who weren't granted summary judgment -- then, according to the Supreme Court in this case, the summary judgment against the other defendant becomes final, and you can appeal that.  In fact, unless you want to get stuck with it, you have to.

Last year, in Fairchilds v. Miami Valley Hospital, the 2nd District confronted the first situation.  The plaintiffs had sued a hospital and a doctor, the doctor was granted summary judgment, the plaintiffs dismissed the entire action, and then refiled against both defendants.  The trial court entered an order making the summary judgment in the first case a final order, then granted summary judgment to the doctor in the second case on res judicata grounds.  The appellate court reversed on both, and the Supreme Court granted an appeal.

And then last week decided they shouldn't have done that, and dismissed the appeal as "improvidently granted."  What's interesting is that Justice Resnick wanted to do that three months ago, and apparently in the interim succeeded in convincing four other justices to do it now.

The moral of this story, if there is one -- besides, "Jeez, is that weird or what?" -- is be careful what you do with a case where one party has been granted summary judgment.  In most cases, it's not going to matter, since the judge on a refiled case is automatically the same one who had it before, and if they granted summary judgment before, they'll do it again.  But if something has happened to that judge in the interim -- think "election results" -- you might get a whole 'nuther bite of the apple.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions