Ohio has long permitted a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case one time with the ability to refile the case within one year. The Savings Statute, R.C. 2305.19(A) states in relevant part:
In any action that is commenced, * * * if the plaintiff fails otherwise and upon the merits, the plaintiff * * * may commence a new action within one year after the date of * * * the plaintiff’s failure otherwise than upon the merits or within the period of the original applicable statute of limitations, whichever occurs later.
Over the years Plaintiffs have misused the Saving Statute, misinterpreting its applicability. Recent cases have defined its applications, but new issues continue to arise, usually resulting in a dismissal of plaintiff’s claim.
One such recent issue occurred in the case of Eckmeyer v. Blough. In this case, the plaintiff filed a Complaint for an alleged violation of civil rights, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff named multiple defendants from Brimfield Township, including the Boards of Trustees, police department and individual officers, as well as naming other defendants unassociated with Brimfield. The case was removed to Federal Court. All of the Brimfield defendants then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, with the Court dismissing the federal claims with prejudice, and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The Order from the Federal Court concluded that there was no just cause for delay on these issues. The federal case remained open for another six weeks, at which time the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants on the federal claims.
Plaintiff refiled his Complaint in State Court one year from the closure of the Federal Court case. The Brimfield defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting the Complaint was untimely. The Trial Court granted the summary judgment, finding that the time to refile under the Savings Statute had expired.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. In a two to one decision, the Court of Appeals determined that Plaintiff’s State Law claims against the Brimfield defendants failed otherwise than upon their merits upon the entry of the Federal Court’s Order granting summary judgment. Plaintiff had argued that the statute did not apply until the closure of the entire case, meaning the case had been properly refiled. The key distinction is the prior case law’s interpretation of the application of the Savings Statute, focusing on the terms “cause of action” as opposed to case. The Court of Appeals determined that the Plaintiff’s cause of action failed when the Federal Court granted summary judgment, thus starting the timeline for the one year grace period under the Savings Statute.
While this case is a bit unique in that the Federal Court was involved and federal and state claims were at issue, the case has applications to cases where multiple defendants are named. A summary judgment granted for one defendant can be rendered moot by plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the balance of the cases; however, based upon this case, the running of the Savings Statute for the defendant prevailing on the summary judgment begins to run from the date of the entry of that judgment, not the date of dismissal. This case appears to be the first case that directly addresses this issue, and therefore there may be competing opinions down the line. However, defendants do have a new tool to use in similar circumstances.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, or the application of time limitations on any specific causes of action, please call one of our General Casualty/Excess Insurance Practice Group members.