 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stallworth v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority11/5/1998
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Appellant, Robert Stallworth, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (hereinafter RTA ) and David Vegh.
Appellant was employed at RTA as a material handler. His immediate supervisor was David Vegh. Appellant was terminated from RTA after he was implicated, investigated, and indicted in a scheme to defraud RTA. A vendor to RTA named appellant as an accessory in a scheme whereby forged or false invoices were submitted to and then paid by RTA. A videotaped confession of his involvement by appellant was obtained by the Cleveland Police Department.
Appellant was indicted on seven charges: theft, theft in office, tampering with records, two counts of forgery, and two counts of uttering. After appellant was indicted, but before trial, RTA terminated his employment. Appellant, although a member of a collective bargaining unit, did not challenge his termination.
Prior to trial, the trial court ruled appellant's confession to be inadmissible. Appellant was acquitted at trial then attempted to regain employment with RTA. After he was unsuccessful, he instigated two lawsuits; this action and an action in federal court. In his complaint in this action, he alleged five counts for relief: malicious prosecution, racial discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.99, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, promissory estoppel, and negligent investigation. In his federal action, appellant alleged that his civil rights were violated. That action was resolved on summary judgment in favor of appellees.
I.
Appellant's first assignment of error reads:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' NEW COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AND ORDERED BY THE COURT FOR FILING POTENTIALLY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS.
The resolution of appellants' first assignment of error requires a determination by this court of whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting appellees' counsel a 30-day extension of time to file dispositive motions. See, Civ.R. 6(B). An abuse of discretion connotes more than error on the part of the trial court, it denotes a decision which is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140, 1141-1142.
Appellant argues that the deadlines set by the court should be rigidly adhered to. In this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion where appellant has not demonstrated specific prejudice to his case because of the trial court's grant of the 30-day extension of time for the filing of dispositive motions. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
Appellants' third assignment of error reads:
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PARTICULARLY WHERE ISSUES OF CREDIBILITY ABOUND IN THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo. Brown v. Scioto Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153, 1158. On de novo review, an appellate court may affirm a trial court's grant of summary judgment for any reason which justifies that decision. A court may grant a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56 when it determines that:
(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in fav
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|