 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sayre v. Valley Ford Truck Sales8/17/2000
JUDGMENT: Reversed.
Within this appeal, Valley Ford Truck Sales, Inc. ( Valley Ford ) challenges the judgment of the trial court which granted Basil A. Sayre's motion for relief from judgment and vacated Sayre's previous voluntary dismissal of his workers' compensation action without prejudice. Valley Ford also appeals from the judgment of the trial court which denied its motion for summary judgment which was based upon the fact that Sayre did not refile his complaint within the time set forth in the savings statute. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the trial court erred in vacating the voluntary dismissal without prejudice since it was not a final order. We further conclude that the trial court erred in denying Valley Ford's motion for summary judgment since Sayre did not refile his action within one year of the dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2305.19
On April 6, 1995, Sayre was injured while working as a truck mechanic at Valley Ford. Initially, a workers' compensation claim was allowed for prepatellar bursitis/left. The Industrial Commission subsequently made an additional allowance for tear posterior horn lateral meniscus left. On July 1, 1997, Valley Ford filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, contesting this additional allowance. Sayre also filed a complaint with the court, alleging that he is entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund. On December 30, 1997, Sayre filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. It is undisputed that Sayre did not refile his action within one year of the dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2305.19, and on February 18, 1999, Valley Ford moved for summary judgment.
Sayre filed a motion for relief from judgment, in which he sought to vacate his previous dismissal without prejudice. On May 5, 1999, the trial court granted Sayre's motion and reinstated Sayre's action to the court's active docket. On May 11, 1999, the trial court denied Valley Ford's motion for summary judgment. Valley Ford now appeals and assigns three errors for our review which we shall consider out of their predesignated order.
Valley Ford's second and third assignments of error are interrelated and state:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT VACATING THE ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 60(B)(5) BECAUSE A NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN VACATING CLAIMAINT'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PREVIOUSLY FILED PURSUANT TO OHIO CIVIL RULE 41(A).
Within these assignments of error, Valley Ford asserts that the trial court had no jurisdiction to vacate Sayre's voluntary dismissal of his action without prejudice. These claims are well- taken.
As an initial matter, we note that the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to appeals brought pursuant to R.C. 4123.512. See Price v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 131, 133.
Civ.R. 60(B) states, in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; * or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. *. (Emphasis added).
Ohio Civ.R. 41 provides in pertinent part:
(A) Voluntary dismissal: effect thereof.
(1) By plaintiff; by stipulation. * n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the commencement of
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.
|
|