On July 15, 2015 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for OTHER CIVIL
in the District Court of Franklin County.
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987
OC651 - N48
IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
BARRON BROWN
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15CV005987
Judge Chris M. Brown
GARY MORR, et al.
Defendants.
JUDGMENT ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the Court upon the August 5, 2015 Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Gary Mohr, Deparment of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and the Chillicothe Correctional
Institution (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). This motion is presented pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Plaintiff filed his Memo in Opposition on August 21, 2015 and Defendants
filed a Reply Memo on the same date. The Court has reviewed the entirety of the Complaint as well as
the motion and memorandum in support or opposition thereof. The Motion is submitted to the Court
pursuant to Local Rule 21.01.
For the reasons set forth in this decision, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will address the merits of the motion under the standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6),
in which Defendants allege the Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the
complaint.
In considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, a trial court may not rely on
allegations or evidence outside the complaint. Rather, the trial court may review only
the complaint and may dismiss the case only if it appears beyond a doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to recover. Moreover, the court
must presume that all factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw allocé651
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987
- N49
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. The court need not, however,
accept as true unsupported legal conclusions in the complaint. (Internal citations
omitted.)
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., LP.A., 183 Ohio.App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2665, at 4]7 (10th Dist.)
Ul. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs Complaint does not clearly state a cause of action. On Page 2 of the Complaint,
Plaintiff recites general procedural rules regarding claims for fraud under Civ.R. 9(b). The Court has thus
considered the Complaint to be one in the nature of fraud. However, Plaintiff has also, apparently,
alleged Defendants’ breach of a Private Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) out of Federal District
Court, Southern District of Ohio Case No. 2:08-cv-15. The Court considers this to be a cause of action for
breach of contract.
The Agreement referenced in the Complaint is between a class of inmates at the Chillicothe
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) and Defendants to abate suspected asbestos found on the premises of
CCI, exposing inmates to potential harmful exposure. (Complaint, pgs. 4-5). Plaintiff alleges that the
company hired to assess the suspected asbestos exposure, Chryatech, Inc., did not comply with Ohio
Revised Code Section 3710.10 to provide necessary approval and permit for the abatement process.
Plaintiff does not allege anywhere in the Complaint that the Defendants have failed to meet
their obligations under the Agreement to abate suspected asbestos. This allegation would be essential
to stating a cause of action for fraud or breach of contract. As such, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a
claim for which this Court could grant him relief.
UL CONCLUSION
Although the Complaint purports to set for claims for fraud and/or breach of contract, Plaintiff
has failed to state a cause of action. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.
THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987
0c651 - N50
JUDGE CHRIS M. BROWN
COPIES TO:
Barron Brown, #465-913
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 5500
Chillicothe, Ohio 45601Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987
0c651 - N51
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
Date: 08-25-2015
Case Title: BARRON BROWN -VS- OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT
REHABILITATION COR ET AL
Case Number: 15CV005987
Type: ENTRY
It Is So Ordered.
/s/s Judge Christopher M. Brown
Electronically signed on 2015-Aug-25 page 4 of 4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987
OC651 - N52
Court Disposition
Case Number: 15CV005987
Case Style: BARRON BROWN -VS- OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT
REHABILITATION COR ET AL
Motion Tie Off Information:
1. Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0059872015-08-0599960000
Document Title: 08-05-2015-MOTION TO DISMISS -
DEFENDANT: OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION COR
Disposition: MOTION GRANTED
Document Filed Date
August 25, 2015
Case Filing Date
July 15, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987 OC651 - N48 IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BARRON BROWN Plaintiff, Case No. 15CV005987 Judge Chris M. Brown GARY MORR, et al. Defendants. JUDGMENT ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This matter comes before the Court upon the August 5, 2015 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Gary Mohr, Deparment of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). This motion is presented pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Plaintiff filed his Memo in Opposition on August 21, 2015 and Defendants filed a Reply Memo on the same date. The Court has reviewed the entirety of the Complaint as well as the motion and memorandum in support or opposition thereof. The Motion is submitted to the Court pursuant to Local Rule 21.01. For the reasons set forth in this decision, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court will address the merits of the motion under the standard of review for Civ.R. 12(B)(6), in which Defendants allege the Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. In considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, a trial court may not rely on allegations or evidence outside the complaint. Rather, the trial court may review only the complaint and may dismiss the case only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling the plaintiff to recover. Moreover, the court must presume that all factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw allocé651 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987 - N49 reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. The court need not, however, accept as true unsupported legal conclusions in the complaint. (Internal citations omitted.) Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., LP.A., 183 Ohio.App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2665, at 4]7 (10th Dist.) Ul. LEGAL ANALYSIS Plaintiffs Complaint does not clearly state a cause of action. On Page 2 of the Complaint, Plaintiff recites general procedural rules regarding claims for fraud under Civ.R. 9(b). The Court has thus considered the Complaint to be one in the nature of fraud. However, Plaintiff has also, apparently, alleged Defendants’ breach of a Private Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) out of Federal District Court, Southern District of Ohio Case No. 2:08-cv-15. The Court considers this to be a cause of action for breach of contract. The Agreement referenced in the Complaint is between a class of inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“CCI”) and Defendants to abate suspected asbestos found on the premises of CCI, exposing inmates to potential harmful exposure. (Complaint, pgs. 4-5). Plaintiff alleges that the company hired to assess the suspected asbestos exposure, Chryatech, Inc., did not comply with Ohio Revised Code Section 3710.10 to provide necessary approval and permit for the abatement process. Plaintiff does not allege anywhere in the Complaint that the Defendants have failed to meet their obligations under the Agreement to abate suspected asbestos. This allegation would be essential to stating a cause of action for fraud or breach of contract. As such, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a claim for which this Court could grant him relief. UL CONCLUSION Although the Complaint purports to set for claims for fraud and/or breach of contract, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED. THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER.Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987 0c651 - N50 JUDGE CHRIS M. BROWN COPIES TO: Barron Brown, #465-913 Chillicothe Correctional Institution P.O. Box 5500 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987 0c651 - N51 Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Date: 08-25-2015 Case Title: BARRON BROWN -VS- OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION COR ET AL Case Number: 15CV005987 Type: ENTRY It Is So Ordered. /s/s Judge Christopher M. Brown Electronically signed on 2015-Aug-25 page 4 of 4Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2015 Aug 25 8:51 AM-15CV005987 OC651 - N52 Court Disposition Case Number: 15CV005987 Case Style: BARRON BROWN -VS- OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION COR ET AL Motion Tie Off Information: 1. Motion CMS Document Id: 15CV0059872015-08-0599960000 Document Title: 08-05-2015-MOTION TO DISMISS - DEFENDANT: OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION COR Disposition: MOTION GRANTED