 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coleman v. Cleveland School District Board of Education11/4/2004
, defendants filed a motion to stay the filing of dispositive motions, since Coleman had failed to respond to their discovery requests, which was denied by the trial court on October 29, 2003.
{ } On October 31, 2003, defendants filed their motions for leave to file summary judgment instanter in which they maintained that Coleman was suspended and not re-hired as a result of her insubordination at work, and not the sexual harassment complaint filed against Fulton. In addition, defendants maintained that the "white blonde female" that Coleman referred to as receiving preferential treatment was only a temporary employee and not permanently employed at Shaw High School. On December 18, 2003, the trial court ordered Coleman to file her briefs in opposition by January 23, 2004.
{ } On January 23, 2004, Coleman requested an additional extension of time to file her brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
{ } On January 29, 2004, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment.
{ } On March 3, 2004, Coleman filed an amended motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 61, which was denied by the trial court on March 15, 2004.
{ } It is from these decisions that Coleman now appeals and raises four assignments of error for our review.
{ } "I. The lower common pleas court abused its discretion and erred in dismissing plaintiff's case without prior or proper notice as required per Civ.R. 41(B) and in denying plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to all defendant's motions for summary judgment."
{ } In her first assignment of error, Coleman raises two issues with regard to the trial court's rulings. First, she argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint without notice as required under Civ.R. 41(B). Civ.R. 41(B) is inapplicable here. Coleman's complaint was dismissed under Civ.R. 56(B) after the trial court considered all of the pleadings and affidavits.
{ } Next, Coleman argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for an extension of time to file her brief in opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment.
{ } Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F), a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may obtain a continuance pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F) by submitting affidavits which state a factual basis and which provide sufficient reasons for the lack of supporting affidavits and the need for additional time to permit affidavits to be obtained or further discovery to be had. Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Pepper Pike (1978), 59 Ohio App.2d 155, 168-169. A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a request for a continuance pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F), and its decision will not be overruled absent an abuse of discretion. Id.
{ } Here, Coleman requested, and was granted, numerous extensions of time since the filing of her complaint on December 27, 2001. She failed to comply with the trial court's discovery deadline of September 27, 2003. She also failed to respond to the defendants' motions for summary judgment by the January 23, 2004 deadline. Instead, on that date, she requested an extension of time in which to respond, which was denied by the trial court.
{ } Under the circumstances presented in this case, we find that Coleman has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for an extension. First, her request was filed on the day her motion was due. Second, the request was one of many motions filed by her that demonstrated a pattern of missing established deadlines and intentionally causing delay.
And, third, her motion was n
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|