 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Professional Transportation12/1/2005
se of that choice, the result must be so palpably and grossly violative of fact or logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but the perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but the defiance of judgment, not the exercise of reason but instead passion or bias. Id.
{ } Both the appellant's first complaint and her amended complaint failed to contain a short and plain statement showing that she was entitled to relief. Her complaint listed five defendants; however, she failed to identify which of the five defendants was her employer. Her complaint alleged sexual harassment and retaliation; however, she failed to specify which of the defendants were being sued for which counts. She also neglected to provide details regarding the retaliation she allegedly experienced. These omissions go directly to the issue of relief. It is clear that her complaint did not make the proper showing that she was, in fact, entitled to relief.
{ } In addition to her failure to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 8(A), the appellant also failed to comply with the trial court's mandates to file a conforming complaint by a specific deadline. In the trial court's original order, it requested that the appellant file an amended complaint by December 17, 2004; however, she failed to meet that deadline. She did file an amended complaint on January 7, 2005, well after the court ordered deadline; however, the trial court held that the amended complaint still did not fit within the requirements of Civ.R. 8(A) and sanctioned the appellant $300 for her failure to file a proper complaint. The trial court gave the appellant an additional opportunity to file an amended complaint by a new deadline of January 28, 2005; but, once again, the appellant failed to adhere to the order of the court, filing her amended complaint on January 31, three days after the court ordered date.
{ } It is clear from the appellant's actions that, in spite of the consideration given to her by the trial court, she continued to disregard the court's filing deadlines. It is also clear that the appellant failed to file a complaint in conformity with Civ.R. 8(A), despite the leniency afforded her by the trial court.
{ } We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the appellant's complaint for want of prosecution. In light of the facts, it is clear that the trial court's actions were neither unreasonable, arbitrary nor unconscionable. Thus, the appellant's first assignment of error is without merit.
{ } "II. The decision of the court was contrary to law."
{ } In her second assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her case for want of prosecution, pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1), which states in pertinent part:
{ } " here the plaintiff fails to prosecute, or comply with these rules or any court order, the court upon motion of a defendant or on its own motion may, after notice to the plaintiff's counsel, dismiss an action or claim."
{ } The appellant argues that the trial court erroneously applied Civ.R. 41(B)(1) and, in so doing, abused its discretion. This court cannot agree.
{ } The appellant cites Tolkes & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d., 612, 632, as support for her position that the trial court erred when it dismissed her case for want of prosecution. However, Tolkes does not provide the necessary support and, in fact, serves as precedent for the position that the trial court did not err when it dismissed her complaint for want of prosecution. Tolkes states that Civ.R. 41(B)(1) is "reserved for those cases in which the conduct of a p
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.
|
|