Opinion
2022-00570JD
12-06-2023
CAROL HELLER Plaintiff v. KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 1/30/24
Scott Sheets Magistrate Judge.
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LISA L. SADLER JUDGE.
{¶1} Defendant Kent State University's (Defendant) Motion for Summary Judgment is fully briefed and before the Court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). Initially, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's September 26, 2023 Motion for Leave to submit her affidavit in support of her response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Carol Heller's (Plaintiff) Complaint asserts three claims based on Defendant's alleged failure to pay her for overtime hours she worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Complaint ¶ 8-13; 22.) As evidence, the parties submitted Plaintiff's deposition, several affidavits, as well as various exhibits including filings from Plaintiff's previously dismissed federal case. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶2} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in Civ.R. 56(C), which states, in part:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.
"[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293.
{¶3} If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party bears a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which provides that "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but the party's response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." When considering the evidence, "[a]ny doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party." Pingue v. Hyslop, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1000, 2002-Ohio-2879, ¶ 15. Summary judgment is not appropriate unless:
construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, that conclusion being adverse to the nonmoving party.Robinette v. Orthopedics, Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97AP-1299, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2038, 7 (May 4, 1999).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
{¶4} Plaintiff formerly worked for Defendant as an administrative assistant. When the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, Plaintiff began working from home. (Complaint ¶¶ 4; 9-10; Answer ¶¶ 4; 9-10.) Plaintiff created spreadsheets which she asserts document 426.25 overtime hours that she worked from home between March of 2020 and August of 2021. (Complaint ¶ 12; Heller Depo. pp. 57; 77; Ex. 4 and Ex. 6.) Plaintiff sought payment of these overtime hours in December of 2021 but Defendant has not paid Plaintiff overtime and maintains that Plaintiff is not entitled to overtime pay. (Complaint ¶¶ 13-14, 16; Answer ¶¶ 13-14, 16.)
{¶5} Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ("the federal court") on March 25, 2022. (Affidavit of Daniel Rudary ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Heller's federal complaint asserted causes of action for "FLSA Overtime Violation," "Ohio Overtime Violation," and "Ohio Prompt Pay Act." Id. Defendant sought dismissal of plaintiff's federal complaint on July 1, 2022. Id. at ¶ 5. On July 27, 2022, in responding to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff indicated that she did "not oppose the dismissal of her cause of action with prejudice." Id. at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. B. After Defendant filed a reply brief agreeing with Plaintiff's position, the federal court dismissed Plaintiff's federal complaint with prejudice via an Order of Dismissal on August 17, 2023. Id. at ¶ 8-11, Exh. C and D. Though there are a few minor differences between Plaintiff's federal complaint and Plaintiff's Complaint in the present case, they are nearly identical, recite the same set of facts, and delineate the same three causes of action. Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. A; Complaint p. 3-5.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
{¶6} Relying on the federal court's dismissal order, Defendant first asserts that res judicata bars Plaintiff's claims. As recognized in Saha v. Research Inst. at Nationwide Childrens Hosp., 10th Dist. No. 12AP-590, 2013-Ohio-4203, ¶ 23, res judicata encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Here, Defendant asserts claim preclusion "which provides, '[a] final judgment or decree rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction * * * is a complete bar to any subsequent action on the same claim or cause of action between the parties or those in privity with them.'" (citations omitted.) Further, "the doctrine applies as between federal court and state court holdings, so that the judgment or decree of a federal court possessing competent jurisdiction will be 'final as to the subject matter thereby determined' for state court purposes as well." Id. (citations omitted.) It is also well-settled that a "dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits." Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167, 171 (2008); Nicely v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-187, 2009-Ohio-4386, ¶ 13.
{¶7} Here, Defendant correctly points out that the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. While Plaintiff asserts that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and points out that Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with the federal court on this basis, the federal court did not address subject-matter jurisdiction or the motion to dismiss in its Order of Dismissal. Instead, the Order of Dismissal notes that the parties were "in agreement that this case should be dismissed with prejudice." Rudary Aff. ¶ 10, Ex. D. Thus, the Court finds that the federal court Order of Dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Plaintiff states in her response to the present motion that "Plaintiff was so convinced by Defendant's quoted analysis that she voluntarily dismissed her claims from federal court and refiled in the Court of Claims." Nonetheless, Plaintiff asks the Court to ignore the circumstances of the District Court's dismissal, including the explicit language of the District Court's order and the parties' agreement, and to instead "read the judgment as it can only be properly read under the law, as dismissal without prejudice." (Plaintiff's Response p. 4.)
{¶8} In addition, Defendant directs the Court to Manohar v. Massillon Community Hosp., 122 Ohio App.3d 715, 716 (5th Dist. 1997), which involved very similar circumstances to the present case. The Court finds Manohar persuasive. In Manohar, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court, the Defendant sought summary judgment and asserted that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff filed a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiff in Manohar then filed a complaint in Common Pleas Court that "alleged the same claims as the federal complaint plus additional claims." The trial court granted summary judgment based on res judicata. Id.
{¶9} On appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, the plaintiff argued that "because the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal with prejudice could not affect the common-law state claims." Id. at 717. After examining the federal complaint and the state court complaint and determining that they were based on the same facts, the Fifth District found that both complaints arose out of the same occurrences. Id. at 717-718.
{¶10} The Fifth District cited the language of the stipulated voluntary dismissal which provided that the parties "do hereby stipulate that this case is dismissed with prejudice at Plaintiff's costs." In rejecting the plaintiff's argument "that because a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction * * * was pending * * * the dismissal was not a final order upon the merits," the Fifth District reasoned "that if the [federal court] had found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction * * * the doctrine of res judicata [would be] inapplicable." However, because "the final order was a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice * * * [t]he question to be resolved" was "whether 'with prejudice' equates to a final order upon the merits." Id. at 718-719. The Fifth District found that "the dismissal is by order of court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (a)(2)" and that the order dismissed the case with prejudice which constituted a judgment on the merits under Ohio law. As such, it found that res judicata applied and affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Id., at 719.
{¶11} Plaintiff fails to address Manohar despite asserting the same argument as that which the Fifth District rejected. Further, a comparison of Plaintiff's federal complaint and the Complaint in this case reveals that they are nearly identical. In fact, unlike Manohar, Plaintiff's Complaint in this case does not include additional claims that were not included in her federal complaint. Finally, like in Manohar, the federal court could have dismissed Plaintiff's federal complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but it did not. It never ruled on the issue and instead dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to the parties' agreement, a decision on the merits per Ohio law.
{¶12} Based on the above, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the dismissal of Plaintiff's federal complaint in that it was dismissed with prejudice and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on res judicata. As this ruling is dispositive, the Court declines to address the other arguments raised in Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
{¶13} Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant. All previously scheduled events are VACATED. Court costs are assessed against Plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.