Court Opinion

ID: 9815246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:29:29.17854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:21.737668
License: Public Domain

CHRISTLEY, P.J.,
concurs with concurring opinion.
I reluctantly concur with the opinion of the majority as to the second assignment of error concerning whether the trial court gave appellant notice of its intent to dismiss. I believe that the majority in its analysis of Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 99, construes that case too narrowly. The facts in Ohio Furniture Co., supra, indicate that the only actual notice of a potential sanction of dismissal given to appellant was by reference to Civ. R. 37(B) made in appellee's motion to dismiss. Apparently, the court itself never indicated in any of its orders relating to discovery that appellant's failure to comply or to timely respond (Loc. R. 11 [CC]) could result in the imposition of sanctions including dismissal.
The instant case differs significantly in that respect. The July 25 court order did include a warning to the appellant that if he did not comply with discovery by the date certain that he would "be subject to sanctions by the court." Unfortunately, there was no additional inclusion of the specific potential sanction of dismissal as there was with an earlier order. Had that addition been present, I would have had no trouble in finding that notice of dismissal, per Ohio Furniture Co., supra, was complied with under the other facts of this case.
I do not believe that Ohio Furniture means that a second notice is required. Civ. A. 60(B) is still available for those who might otherwise suffer an injustice In the present case, since a specific reference to a potential sanction of dismissal was missing in the instant case, I reluctantly concur with the majority and their conclusion on this point.