Mention v. Car-X, (Ohio 2011)

Summary

---

PROCEDURE/RULES: Before a trial court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1), the court must provide notice of its intent to do so to the plaintiff’s counsel. The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for failure to prosecute where the court did not provide notice to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s counsel that the action was subject to dismissal.

Summary

---

PROCEDURE/RULES: Before a trial court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(1), the court must provide notice of its intent to do so to the plaintiff’s counsel. The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for failure to prosecute where the court did not provide notice to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s counsel that the action was subject to dismissal.

Text

---

[Cite as Mention v. Car-X, 2011-Ohio-6383.]

  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO  HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO      CHARLES MENTION,  :

APPEAL NO. C-110335                         TRIAL NO. 09CV-22296             Plaintiff-Appellant,  :                                     vs.  :  O P I N I O N.        CAR-X,  :                Defendant-Appellee.   :          Civil Appeal From:  Hamilton County Municipal Court      Judgment Appealed From Is:  Reversed and Cause Remanded    Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal:  December 14, 2011      Eric D. Bender, for Plaintiff-Appellant.        Please note:  This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.               

- 1 -

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS    SYLVIA SIEVE HENDON, Judge.  {¶1}  Plaintiff-appellant Charles Mention filed a complaint against defendant- appellee Car-X, alleging negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of  the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01 et seq.  The municipal court referred  the case to a magistrate who dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute and entered  judgment for Car-X.  Mention objected to the magistrate’s decision, asserting that he had  not received notice of the trial date or of the possibility of a dismissal.  The trial court  overruled his objections.  Mention now appeals.  {¶2}  In a single assignment of error, Mention argues that the trial court erred by  dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute without giving him notice as required by  Civ.R. 41.  We agree.  {¶3}  Under Civ.R. 41(B)(1), where a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action, the court  may, after notice to plaintiff’s counsel, dismiss the action.  Under the rule, notice is a  prerequisite to dismissal for failure to prosecute.  Logsdon v. Nichols (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d  124, 128, 647 N.E.2d 1361.  The notice requirement allows a party in default the opportunity  to explain or correct a default before a dismissal.  Id.; Penaranda v. DNJ Holdings, LLC, 1st  Dist. No. C-090739, 2010-Ohio-5848.  Thus, before a trial court may dismiss a case for  failure to prosecute, the court must provide notice  of  its  intent  to  do  so  to  the  plaintiff’s  counsel.  Perotti v. Ferguson (1983), 7 Ohio St.3d 1, 454 N.E.2d 951, syllabus; Logsdon,  supra, at 128; Penaranda, supra.  {¶4}  The record discloses no notice to plaintiff’s counsel or to the plaintiff that the  action was subject to dismissal.  Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s  action.     {¶5}  Because the dismissal entered in this case did not comply with the notice  provisions of Civ.R. 41(B)(1), we sustain the assignment of error, reverse the judgment of   

- 2 -

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS    the trial court, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance  with law.    Judgment reversed and cause remanded.      DINKELACKER, P.J., and CUNNINGHAM, J., concur.    Please Note:    The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.   

- 3 -

---