 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Professional Transportation12/1/2005
{ } Brenda Brown brings this appeal asserting that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for want of prosecution. After a thorough review of the arguments presented and for reasons stated below, we affirm the findings of the trial court.
{ } The incident that gave rise to the appellant's complaint alleging sexual harassment and retaliation occurred in August 2003, when Nick Carter allegedly made gestures toward his genital area while making lewd comments to her. In August 2004, about a year after the appellant had filed her complaint against Carter, Howard Zallar allegedly approached her and said that "things could get real nasty for " if she continued to pursue action against Carter.
{ } The appellant's complaint was initially filed on September 3, 2004 against Professional Transportation, Inc., Nick Carter, Howard Zallar, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and United Professional and Service Employees Union Local 1222 (herein "Local 1222"). Local 1222 subsequently filed a motion for a more definite statement, citing that the complaint did not specify a cause of action.
{ } On November 26, 2004, the trial court issued an order requiring the appellant to file an amended complaint by December 17, 2004; however, she failed to do so. In response, on December 22, 2004, Local 1222 filed a motion to strike the appellant's complaint. On January 7, 2005, the appellant filed her first amended complaint; however, the amended complaint still failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the trial court's order of November 26, 2004. As a result, the trial court sanctioned the appellant in the amount of $300 and again requested that she file an amended complaint by a new deadline of January 28, 2005. In addition, the trial court informed the appellant that failure to file an amended complaint by the specified date would result in the dismissal of her case. The appellant again failed to file an amended complaint by the specified date; she instead submitted an amended complaint three days after the court-ordered date. As a result of the appellant's failure to comply with the mandates of the court, her complaint was dismissed.
{ } The appellant now presents this appeal citing two assignments of error for our review.
{ } "I. The court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for want of prosecution."
{ } Here, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed her case for want of prosecution.
More specifically, she asserts that, pursuant to Civ.R. 8(A), she adequately set forth a claim for relief in her original complaint as well as in the amended complaint.
{ } Civ.R. 8(A) mandates that a proper complaint should contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief to which the party claims to be entitled."
{ } The appellant argues that the complaints she filed with the trial court were in conformity with the requirements of Civ.R. 8(A), and the trial court's failure to so hold constituted an abuse of discretion. This court cannot agree with the appellant's contentions.
{ } To constitute an abuse of discretion, the ruling must be more than legal error; it must be unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 50 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140. "The term discretion itself involves the idea of choice, of an exercise of the will, of a determination made between competing considerations." State v Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222, quoting Spalding v. Spalding (1959), 355 Mich. 382, 384-385. In order to have an abu
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.
|
|