 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mason v. GFS Leasing and Management2/7/2002
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant, Valerie Mason, appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee, GFS Leasing and Management, a/k/a Altercare of Forest Hills. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In August 1998, appellant was discharged from her employment with Forest Hills Nursing Home, also known as Altercare of Forest Hills. In February 1999, after a hearing, the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission issued a decision finding that appellant was discharged from her employment for just cause and disallowing her application for benefits.
On March 18, 1999, in Case No. 380387, appellant filed a pro se administrative appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. On October 4, 1999, the trial court issued an order affirming the decision of the Unemployment Review Commission and dismissing appellant's case. On November 2, 1999, appellant filed a notice of appeal regarding the trial court's decision. Appellant's appeal was dismissed by this court on September 18, 2000, due to her failure to file a brief conforming with the appellate rules. Mason v. Forest Hills Nursing Homes (Sept. 18, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 77204, unreported.
On August 17, 1999, while her administrative appeal was pending, appellant filed a pro se complaint against appellee. In her complaint, appellant set forth claims for wrongful termination, defamation and failure to provide a safe working environment. The case was assigned Case No. 389759 and assigned to another Common Pleas Court judge.
On May 5, 2000, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that appellant's complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the final judgment in Case No. 380387 precluded appellant from asserting any other claims arising out of her termination against her employer.
On May 17, 2000, the trial court entered an order dismissing appellant's case, stating:
Defendant's motion to dismiss (filed 5-5-00) is granted. The court hereby finds that pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata plaintiff's complaint herein must be dismissed. Plaintiff may continue to pursue her claims in the first-filed lawsuit 380387, through the appeal.
Appellant did not appeal the trial court's decision. Instead, on June 8, 2000, appellant filed another pro se complaint against appellee, again asserting claims for defamation and failure to provide a safe working environment, and including a claim for infliction of emotional distress. The case was assigned Case No. 409342 and assigned to a third Common Pleas Court judge. On February 1, 2001, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On March 30, 2001, the trial court entered an order granting appellee's motion to dismiss, stating, Plaintiff's complaint is barred by res judicata. This appeal followed.
The doctrine of res judicata encompasses two related concepts: claim preclusion (traditionally referred to as res judicata) and issue preclusion (traditionally referred to as collateral estoppel). Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has adopted an expansive definition of claim preclusion: a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. Id. at syllabus. Stated differently, an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all cl
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|