The court did distinguish a prior case that had been reversed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Id. at ¶ 53, fn.5, citing LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 44, 2007-Ohio-2856, 872 N.E.2d 1277 (11th Dist.), rev'd 119 Ohio St.3d 324, 2008-Ohio-3921, 894 N.E.2d 25. {¶ 61} In this regard, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that under LaNeve, she had attempted to commence her action by filing the complaint in the trial court and should be able to refile beyond the statutory period.
Decided August 13, 2008. APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No. 2006-T-0032, 172 Ohio App.3d 44, 2007-Ohio-2856. Robert F. Burkey, for appellees.
For this reason, Fetterolf is distinguishable from the instant case. Ms. Gibson also relies on this court's decision on LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 44, 2007-Ohio-2856, rev'd, 119 Ohio St. 3d 324, 2008-Ohio-3921, for the proposition that although she failed to obtain service, she "attempted to commence" her action when she filed her original complaint on January 12, 2004, and therefore should be able to utilize the saving statute to refile her case beyond the statutory period. LaNeve is inapposite, as the issue in that case concerned whether the saving statute applied to an action that was not commenced pursuant to the specific requirements of Civ. R. 15(D), which deals with the amendment of a complaint where name of a party is unknown.