DocketNumber: No. 2008-P-0032.
Citation Numbers: 2008 Ohio 6995
Judges: MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
Filed Date: 12/31/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 67} I respectfully dissent. It is my belief that, when possible, the rules and statutes should be construed to allow for cases to be decided on their merits. As a *Page 19 result, I have a much broader reading of Civ. R. 3(A). The pertinent section of Civ. R. 3(A) states that an action is commenced upon the filing of a complaint if service is obtained within one year "upona named defendant." (Emphasis added.) In this case, the docket reveals that a complaint was filed on January 10, 2006 against three defendants. Service was obtained on defendant Shirley J. Owens on January 13, 2006. Service was obtained on defendant Rebekah S. Schaer on January 14, 2006. Therefore, according to my interpretation of Civ. R. 3(A), "a" named defendant was served in this case, and the action was "commenced."
{¶ 68} If service must be obtained on "the" defendant for an action to be deemed commenced against that defendant, I believe the rule should so state. Perhaps the Rules Advisory Committee may consider some clarification if my interpretation is incorrect, but a plain reading of the rule suggests that service upon any defendant is sufficient to deem a civil action commenced. As such, in this case, the civil action was properly commenced and, since appellant eventually accomplished service of the amended complaint on "the" defendant, no limitation period should apply.
{¶ 69} While distinguishable, my interpretation would be consistent with the holding of this court in Beneficial Ohio, Inc. v. Ellis, 11th Dist. No. 2006-T-0040,
{¶ 70} In addition, my interpretation would bring the definition of commencement more in line with the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P.
{¶ 71} Based on the foregoing, I would respectfully reverse and remand. *Page 1