Ora v. Fitness Internatl., L.L.C.

[Cite as Ora v. Fitness Internatl., L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-2824.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
UZI ORA, : APPEAL NO. C-200008
TRIAL NO. A-1604783
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. :
O P I N I O N.
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC., :
d.b.a LA FITNESS,
Defendant-Appellee. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Case Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 13, 2021
Uzi Ora, pro se,
Lupo & Kockzur, P.C., and Paul S. Kockzur, for Defendant-Appellee.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Uzi Ora sued Fitness International, LLC, d.b.a. LA
Fitness (“LA Fitness”) in both state and federal court, asserting civil rights violations.
The state court stayed Ora’s case pending the resolution of the federal case. After the
federal court granted summary judgment in favor of LA Fitness, LA Fitness moved
for dismissal of Ora’s state claims based on res judicata.
{¶2} Because we find procedural errors requiring reversal, we do not reach
the merits of Ora’s appeal.
Facts and Procedure
{¶3} In February 2018, LA Fitness moved for summary judgment in federal
court, asserting that it had terminated Ora’s membership for legitimate reasons. The
trial court granted the motion. Ora appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
but his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
{¶4} In October 2019, LA Fitness filed a motion to dismiss the state court
claims, arguing that the federal case had been dismissed by both the federal trial
court and the Sixth Circuit. LA Fitness attached a number of exhibits to its motion to
dismiss, including documents from the federal case. The state court granted the
motion to dismiss on grounds of res judicata.
{¶5} On appeal, Ora argues that his federal case against LA Fitness was not
dismissed on the merits. LA Fitness argues that the federal court’s granting of the
motion for summary judgment was a valid judgment on the merits because it was
granted after the federal court considered the evidence that was attached to LA
Fitness’s motion.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Procedural Issue
{¶6} We do not reach the merits of this case because this court recently
determined that it is improper to grant a motion to dismiss based on res judicata.
Ralls v. Lewin, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180526, 2019-Ohio-3302, ¶ 5, citing
Jefferson v. Bunting, 140 Ohio St.3d 62, 2014-Ohio-3074, 14 N.E.3d 1036, ¶ 10.
Resolution of res judicata arguments generally depends on evidence that is outside of
the complaint and a trial court may not rely on evidence or allegations outside of a
complaint in order to determine a motion to dismiss. Id. at ¶ 6.
{¶7} LA Fitness’s motion to dismiss contained materials outside of the
complaint. “Where a res judicata defense depends on matters outside the pleadings,
and the trial court considers the extraneous materials in ruling on the motion, the
court should convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and
provide the nonmoving party with notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. at ¶ 7.
The trial court did not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment and did not provide Ora notice and an opportunity to be heard. Therefore,
the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was improper.
Conclusion
{¶8} The trial court improperly dismissed the complaint on grounds of res
judicata because it considered materials outside of the complaint in ruling on the
motion to dismiss. Therefore, we do not reach the merits of Ora’s appeal. We reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand this case to the trial court to conduct
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion
4