Sherrills v. Enersys Delaware, Inc. ( 2012 )

[Cite as Sherrills v. Enersys Delaware, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5183.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 98319
DENISE SHERRILLS
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
ENERSYS DELAWARE, INC.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-771565
BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Sweeney, P.J., and Cooney, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 8, 2012
FOR APPELLANT
Denise Sherrills, pro se
21149 North Street
Euclid, Ohio 44117
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen Toth
Charles F. Billington
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
127 Public Square
Suite 4130
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant
to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1.
{¶2} In this accelerated appeal, Denise Sherrills appeals from the decision of the
trial court granting Enersys Delaware Incorporated’s (“Enersys”) motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Finding no merit to the instant appeal, we affirm the decision of the trial
court.
{¶3} App.R. 11.1(A) states in pertinent part:
The accelerated calendar is designed to provide a means to eliminate delay
and unnecessary expense in effecting a just decision on appeal by the
recognition that some cases do not require as extensive or time-consuming
procedure as others.
{¶4} In filing the instant appeal, Sherills filed a docketing statement that
indicated the “appropriate designation for this case” was assignment to the accelerated
calendar. In spite of the foregoing, Sherrills has filed an appellate brief that frustrates
the intention of the accelerated calender. See Loc.App.R. 11.1(A)(2)(c). Specifically,
Sherrills’ brief is in excess of fifteen pages and contains the following five assignments of
error.
Assignment of Error I
The judgment of the trial court granting the appellee’s pleading and denying
the appellant’s motion for summary judgment was an abuse of discretion.
Assignment of Error II
The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint because plaintiff
did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Assignment of Error III
Trial court abused its discretion because defendants did not demonstrate to
the trial court failure to answer was the result of excusable neglect, pursuant
to Civ.R. 60(B)(1) & 6B2 [sic].
Assignment of Error IV
Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for leave to file to answer
amended complaint.
Assignment of Error V
Trial court erred in denying appellant’s default judgment.
{¶5} This appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1(E) and
Loc.App.R.11.1.
{¶6} On October 28, 2011, Sherills obtained a judgment against an Enersys
employee and moved to garnish the employee’s wages through the Cleveland Municipal
Court. Sherrills forwarded the garnishment order to Enersys, which then sent funds
garnished from its employee’s wages to the Cleveland Municipal Court on December 27,
2011. Believing that Enersys was not complying with the garnishment order, Sherills
filed the instant complaint against Enersys on December 16, 2011. Sherrills filed
motions for default and summary judgment, and Enersys filed a motion for leave to file an
answer, instanter. The trial court denied Sherrills’ motions and granted Enersys leave to
file an answer. Enersys also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the
trial court granted on April 3, 2012.
{¶7} Sherrills appeals, raising the five assignments of error contained in this
opinion.
{¶8} Sherrills’ first assignment of error, which challenges the trial court’s grant
of Enersys’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, is overruled. This court can glean
only one purported claim for relief from Sherrills’ amended complaint, that Enersys failed
to timely comply with the Cleveland Municipal Court’s garnishment order regarding its
employee. A review of the Cleveland Municipal Court docket reveals that the court
began receiving the garnished wages on December 27, 2011, which is within the time
constraints of R.C. 2716.041.
{¶9} Sherrills’ second assignment of error, which challenges the trial court’s
denial of her motion for summary judgment, is also overruled. Sherrills’ underlying
motion contained no references to “depositions, answers to interrogatories, written
admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.”
Additionally, the Cleveland Municipal Court docket reveals that Enersys was depositing
the garnished wages with the court.
{¶10} Sherrills’ third and fourth assignments of error challenging the court’s
decision to grant Enersys’ motion for leave to file an answer, instanter, are overruled on
the authority of State ex rel. Lindenschmidt v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 72 Ohio St.3d
464, 650 N.E.2d 1343 (1995). It is apparent from the record that the court did not abuse
its discretion in granting Enersys’ motion.
{¶11} Sherrills’ fifth assignment of error, which challenged the trial court’s
denial of her motion for default judgment is overruled on the authority of Pinchak v.
Prudhomme, 8th Dist. No. 94053, 2010-Ohio-3879. Because Enersys filed a motion for
leave to file an answer, instanter, which the trial court granted prior to ruling on the
motion for default judgment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Sherrills’ motion.
{¶12} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J., and
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR