Wolf v. Associated Materials8/15/2000
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
Appellant Connie Wolf appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Ashland County, denying her motion to vacate a prior judgment entry in a workers compensation action. The appellee is Associated Materials, Inc., appellant's former employer. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. On June 10, 1999, appellant was allegedly injured while in the employ of Premium Building, Inc., under whose assigned risk number appellee operated. After exhausting her administrative workers compensation remedies, appellant filed a notice of appeal and complaint in the trial court on November 2, 1999. The complaint, as filed, listed three defendants: Hedstrom Corporation, Appellee Associated Materials, Inc. ("AMI"), and James Conrad, Administrator, Bureau of Workers Compensation.
However, the body of the complaint made no mention of appellee; instead, it contained allegations against Hedstrom, for whom appellant had not worked since 1996. On November 17, 1999, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against AMI. Appellee also challenged jurisdiction, asserting that AMI maintained no operations or work sites in Ashland County. On November 22, 1999, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss appellee. On December 6, 1999, Hedstrom filed a motion for extension of time in which to respond to appellant's complaint, alleging that appellant left employment with Hedstrom in August, 1996, and that the pending lawsuit was the first knowledge it had received regarding the claim. On December 16, 1999 appellant filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The trial court denied appellant's motion to amend on December 22, 1999.
On January 6, 2000, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from said judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), again asking the court to allow AMI to be reinstated as a defendant. After allowing both sides to submit briefs on the issue, the court considered the motion for relief from judgment in a "non-oral hearing," and issued a judgment entry overruling the motion on January 28, 2000. The trial court specifically ruled therein that "in this case the importance of finality of judgments overrides any equitable arguments cited by Plaintiff-Appellant." Judgment Entry, January 28, 2000, at 1. In the meantime, on December 3, 1999, the Bureau of Workers Compensation ("BWC") filed its answer to appellant's complaint. Further, on January 13, 2000, counsel for appellant and Hedstrom jointly approved and filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice regarding any claims against Hedstrom. On February 9, 2000, appellant filed her notice of appeal of the trial court's judgment entry of January 28, 2000. She herein raises the following two Assignments of Error:
I. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER OHIO CIVIL RULE 60 (B).
II. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR A RECORD HEARING FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER OHIO CIVIL RULE 60(B).
I and II
Before reaching the potential merits of appellant's arguments, it is necessary that we consider the appealability of the trial court's denial of the motion for relief from judgment. Ordinarily, a grant or denial of a genuine Civ.R. 60(B) motion is a final appealable order. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Forest Cartage Co.(1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 333, 341, citing GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries (1985), 47 Ohio St.2d 146. However, this rule presumes that the underlying order under challenge by a movant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion is, itself, a final appealable order. As succinctly noted by the Second District Court of Appeals, a movant cannot be perm
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|