Court Opinion

ID: 9400501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 15:09:56.816237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:45.793567
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Townsend v. AutoNation Wickliff, 2023-Ohio-1894.]

                                  COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

FAITH TOWNSEND,                                        :

                Plaintiff-Appellant,                   :
                                                              No. 111993
                v.                                     :

AUTONATION WICKLIFF, ET AL.,                           :

                Defendants-Appellees.                  :

                                   JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 8, 2023

                Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                    Case No. CV-21-954289

                                               Appearances:

                Faith Townsend, pro se.

                Frantz Ward LLP, Gregory R. Farkas, and Kelly Bokoch,
                for appellee Mullinax Ford, LLC.

                Baker & Hostetler LLP and Jeremiah J. Wood, for appellee Ford
                Motor Company.

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:

                  Plaintiff-appellant Faith Townsend appeals the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of appellee Ford Motor Company (“Ford Motor Co.”)
regarding alleged damages to a 2019 Ford Explorer that Townsend purchased from

an AutoNation automobile dealership in Wickliffe, Ohio.1 Based upon our detailed

review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s orders in this case.

                                SCOPE OF THE APPEAL

                 In this appeal, we bear in mind that pro se litigants are presumed to

have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and are held to the same standard

as litigants represented by counsel. C.L. v. Weiler, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111474,

2023-Ohio-13, ¶ 17. Townsend’s notice of appeal attached only the August 31, 2022

journal entry granting Ford Motor Co.’s motion for summary judgment. However,

in argument to this court, Townsend claims error in the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment to both Ford Motor Co. and AutoNation as well as the denial of

several motions filed following the judgment entry appealed.

                 “An appellate court ‘is without jurisdiction to review a judgment or

order that is not designated in the appellant’s notice of appeal.’” Ingram v. Glavin,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111931, 2023-Ohio-1290, ¶ 60, quoting Slone v. Bd. of

Embalmers & Funeral Dirs. of Ohio, 123 Ohio App.3d 545, 548, 704 N.E.2d 633

(8th Dist.1997). Because Townsend only attached the judgment entry granting Ford

Motor Co. summary judgment, we are constrained to limit our review of the

assignments of error to only the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ford

Motor Co.

1   AutoNation is a trade name of Mullinax Ford, LLC.
                RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

               On October 14, 2021, Townsend filed a six paragraph, pro se

complaint against AutoNation and Ford Motor Co.                Within the complaint,

Townsend alleged she purchased a 2019 Ford Explorer from AutoNation in April

2019 and that she experienced problems with the vehicle; specifically, the roof rack

became detached, a display console malfunctioned, and decorative decals were

peeling off. Townsend alleged she took the vehicle to AutoNation for service on

January 28, 2020, and that AutoNation attempted to repair the vehicle. She alleged

that when she went to pick up her vehicle, she saw damage to the vehicle. Townsend

alleged the vehicle had abrasions and scratches from an attempt to make repairs,

and the vehicle’s finish was damaged. Townsend alleged that AutoNation then kept

the vehicle and attempted to remedy her complaints regarding damage caused by

the attempt to repair the roof rack. Townsend also alleged that the roof racks were

defective and that the defect was known to both AutoNation and Ford Motor Co.

prior to her purchasing the vehicle. As damages, Townsend sought the return of the

purchase price of the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle.

               On November 23, 2021, the trial court ordered discovery to be

completed by March 2, 2022, and dispositive motions to be filed by April 8, 2022.

Townsend moved the trial court to extend the date to complete discovery to

March 8, 2022, which motion was granted. Ford Motor Co. moved the trial court to

extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions to May 23, 2022, which motion

was also granted by the trial court.
                 On May 23, 2022, Ford Motor Co. moved for summary judgment.2

Within the motion, Ford Motor Co. argued Townsend’s claims were without merit.

As to any potential warranty claims Townsend asserted, Ford Motor Co. argued that,

under a theory of express warranty, Townsend produced no evidence of a warranty.

As to Townsend’s claim that the vehicle was defective, Ford Motor Co. argued that

there was no evidence of a defect put forth by Townsend beyond conclusory

allegations made in the complaint. Ford Motor Co. supplemented its argument by

noting that even had Townsend produced evidence of an express warranty,

Townsend’s claim was without merit because she failed to allow Ford Motor Co. a

reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged defect. Finally, Ford Motor Co. argued

that Townsend could not proceed on a claim of an implied warranty because there

was no evidence privity existed between Townsend and Ford Motor Co.

                 Townsend filed a response to Ford Motor Co.’s motion for summary

judgment.3 Within the response, Townsend did not directly address the arguments

asserted by Ford Motor Co. regarding the existence of an express or implied

warranty, the existence of privity with Ford Motor Co., or detail any further evidence

beyond the allegations in the complaint that a defect existed in the vehicle.

Townsend implied AutoNation employees were untrained and caused damage to the

2   AutoNation also filed for summary judgment in the case.

3Townsend filed one response to both Ford Motor Co.’s and AutoNation’s motions for
summary judgment and titled it “Response to Autonation Wickliffe/Mullinax Ford’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Explorer while following the procedures from Ford Motor Co. for repair of the roof

rack.

              On July 6, 2022, Ford Motor Co. filed a reply to Townsend’s response

to the motion for summary judgment. Ford Motor Co. argued that Townsend failed

to produce evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 56 in support of the allegations of her

complaint. Ford Motor Co. objected to Townsend’s claim that summary judgment

should not be granted based on a claim of negligence because such claim was not

included in the complaint.

              On July 25, 2022, Townsend filed a motion to amend her complaint

and a “Supplement to Plaintiff's Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment.”

The motion to amend the complaint included a claim of negligence against

AutoNation, stating that “the conduct of AutoNation constitutes not only negligence,

but ‘Willful Negligence’ on behalf of the AutoNation.” The supplement attached

documents, including Ford’s technical service bulletins regarding roof racks.

Thereafter, Townsend filed a “Reply Brief In Support Of Plaintiff's Opposition To

Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment.” The response to the motion for

summary judgment concluded that she “upheld her burden of proof that the

negligent acts of [AutoNation] caused unrepairable damage to her vehicle.”

              On August 31, 2022, the trial court issued several journal entries. The

trial court denied Townsend’s motion to amend the complaint. The trial court struck

Townsend’s supplement to plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment

and reply brief in support of plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for
summary judgment because they were filed without leave. The trial court also

granted Ford Motor Co.’s motion for summary judgment.

              On September 7, 2022, the trial court granted AutoNation’s motion

for summary judgment. On September 8, 2022, Townsend filed several motions

seeking to supplement or amend prior filed responses to the motions for summary

judgment. On September 14, 2022, Townsend filed a motion for reconsideration of

the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to both Ford Motor Co. and AutoNation.

On September 28, 2022, the trial court denied Townsend’s motion for

reconsideration and further denied as moot Townsend’s September 9, 2022

motions.

              On September 30, 2022, Townsend filed a pro se notice of appeal,

attaching the trial court’s August 31, 2022 journal entry granting Ford Motor Co.

summary judgment. Within the notice of appeal, Townsend gave “notice of appeal

to the Eighth District Court of Appeals from the final judgment entry of the

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas entered on August 31, 2022 of Summary

Judgement for Ford Motors [sic] Co.”
                               LAW AND ARGUMENT

        The trial court did not err by striking Townsend’s surreply to the motion
           for summary judgment or denying leave to amend the complaint

               We first address Townsend’s second and third assignments of error

because they concern procedural issues.4         In the second assignment of error,

Townsend asserts that the trial court erred by striking her reply brief in response to

Ford Motor Co.’s reply to her opposition to summary judgment filed July 25, 2022

and her supplement to her opposition to motion for summary filed July 26, 2022.

She asserts they were filed within the time allotted pursuant to Civ.R. 6(C)(1).

Civ.R. 6(C)(1) provides the following timeline for responses and replies to motions

as follows:

      (C) Time: motions.

      (1) Motion responses and movants’ replies generally. Responses to a
      written motion, other than motions for summary judgment, may be
      served within fourteen days after service of the motion. Responses to
      motions for summary judgment may be served within twenty-eight
      days after service of the motion. A movant’s reply to a response to any
      written motion may be served within seven days after service of the
      response to the motion.

               Townsend argues her filings were timely because they were filed

within 14 days of Ford Motor Co.’s reply to the opposition to summary judgment.

However, these filings were neither a motion for summary judgment, a response to

a motion for summary judgment, or a reply to a response to a motion for summary

4 The text of Townsend’s assignments of error are included in an appendix to this opinion.
judgment and could only be considered to be surreplies to Ford Motor Co.’s reply.

Civ.R. 56 does not provide a litigant the right to file a surreply. Foradis v. Marc

Glassman, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103454, 2016-Ohio-5235, ¶ 8.

                  “A trial court possesses the inherent authority and discretion to

control its own docket.” State ex rel. Crenshaw v. McMonagle, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 111207, 2022-Ohio-1508, ¶ 3, As such, allowing additional briefing beyond that

allowed by Civ.R. 56 would be within the discretion of the trial court.5 In this case,

no leave was sought to file the surreply or supplement and the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by striking the filings. Although Townsend argues that the trial

court struck the filings as untimely, the trial court’s journal entry belies that

assertion and specifically strikes the filings because they were filed without leave of

court6

                  The second assignment of error is overruled.

5We note that prior to its repeal on June 1, 2021, Loc.R. 11(D) of the Court of Common
Pleas of Cuyahoga County, General Division, specifically provided that “[r]eply or
additional briefs upon motions and submissions may be filed with leave and only upon a
showing of good cause.”

6   The trial court’s August 31, 2022 journal entry reads:

         Plaintiff's Supplement to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary
         Judgment, filed 7/25/22, will be stricken from the record and will not be
         considered as it was filed without leave. Plaintiff's surreply, captioned Reply
         Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
         Summary, and filed 7/25/22, will also be stricken from the record and not
         considered as it was filed without leave.
      The trial court did not err by denying leave to amend the complaint
      after dispositive motions had been filed

                In her third assignment of error, Townsends argues that the trial

court abused its discretion by not allowing her to amend her complaint after Ford

Motor Co. filed a motion for summary judgment. A trial court does not abuse its

discretion when it denies a motion to amend a complaint “where a party is not

seeking to remedy an apparent oversight or omission in the original complaint, but

instead sets forth a new cause of action resulting in prejudice to the defendant.”

Karat Gold Imports, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 62 Ohio App.3d 604, 613, 577

N.E.2d 115 (8th Dist.1989). In attempting to amend the complaint, Townsend

added claims of negligence. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion

in denying leave to file the amended complaint because Townsend asserted a new

cause of action after discovery was completed and after dispositive motions had

been filed.

                The third assignment of error is overruled.

              The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment

                In the first assignment of error, Townsend argues the trial court erred

in granting Ford Motor Co. summary judgment for three reasons: 1) the motion did

not consider the evidence presented in her response to the motion for summary

judgment, 2) the denial of the motion was in contravention of the guidelines set forth

in Civ.R. 56, and 3) the trial court did not comply with Civ.R. 41 in dismissing her

claims against Ford Motor Company.
              Townsend raises arguments within the first assignment of error that

the trial court did not properly apply the standards under Civ.R. 56. A trial court’s

grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Santiago v. Costanzo, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga Nos. 110339 and 110343, 2022-Ohio-611, ¶ 17, citing Grafton v. Ohio

Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). To the extent that

Townsend claims error by the trial court in application of Civ.R. 56, such claim is

moot because we apply a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s judgment.

Further, as to Townsend’s argument the trial court did not properly follow Civ.R. 41,

that rule is inapplicable to this case because the motion for summary judgment was

filed under Civ.R. 56.

              Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment shall be granted 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment is

appropriate when the record presented provides:

      (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 and that conclusion is adverse to the
      nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence
      construed most strongly in his or her favor.

Bohan v. McDonald Hopkins, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110060, 2021-Ohio-

4131, ¶ 19, citing Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d

1196 (1995), paragraph three of the syllabus; Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio
St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998). “The party moving for summary judgment bears

the burden of demonstrating that no material issues of fact exist for trial.” Edvon v.

Morales, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106448, 2018-Ohio-5171, ¶ 17, citing Dresher v.

Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).

               If the party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden,

then the nonmoving party has the burden to set forth specific facts that there remain

genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Id. A trial

court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Santiago at ¶ 17, citing

Grafton at 105.

               Within the complaint, Townsend asserted that there was a defect in

the Ford Explorer she purchased from AutoNation and that she brought the vehicle

once to AutoNation for repair. Specifically, the complaint states that the Explorer

was with AutoNation for three days and during that time, Townsend alleged the car

was damaged. In seeking summary judgment, Ford Motor Company argued the

complaint asserted claims under a theory of an express or implied warranty. In

order to assert a claim under an express warranty, the plaintiff must show that a

warranty existed, that the product failed to perform as warranted, that the defendant

was provided reasonable notice of the defect, and that the plaintiff suffered injury as

a result of the defect. Witkowski v. Ford Motor Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104256,

2016-Ohio-5634, ¶ 22, citing Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Harold Tatman &

Son’s, Ents., 2015-Ohio-4884, 50 N.E.3d 955, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.).
               Further, before bringing a claim for breach of warranty, the consumer

is required to provide the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to correct the

alleged defect. Ultimax, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, S.D.Ohio No. 2:06-cv-

951, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28475, 24 (Apr. 8, 2008); see also R.C. 1345.72(B) (Ohio

“Lemon Law” requires purchaser to provide the manufacturer a “reasonable number

of repair attempts.”).   “Generally, a seller must be ‘given at least two chances to

remedy an alleged defect.’” Rogers v. Ford Motor Co., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

170556, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4221, 4 (Sep. 26, 2018), citing Temple v. Fleetwood

Ents., 133 F.Appx 254, 268 (6th Cir.2005).

               In this case, no warranty was attached to the complaint or provided

in Townsend’s response to the motion for summary judgment as required by

Civ.R. 56. As such, summary judgment was proper where the record did not include

evidence of a warranty. Moreover, consideration of evidence attached by Townsend

in the surreply to the motion for summary judgment or the supplement struck by

the trial court would not remedy the failure to provide proof of a warranty.

Additionally, even had Townsend provided proof of the existence of a warranty,

summary judgment would have been properly granted to Ford Motor Co. where

Townsend did not allow Ford Motor Co. or AutoNation a reasonable number of

attempts to remedy the claimed defect because the record provided Townsend took

the vehicle for repairs to the roof rack only once.

               The first assignment of error is overruled.
                                  CONCLUSION

              Townsend brought a claim against AutoNation and Ford Motor Co.

alleging a defect in her Ford Explorer. Townsend did not provide evidence that a

warranty existed by attaching evidence of a warranty to the complaint or by

attaching evidence of a warranty to a response to Ford Motor Co.’s motion for

summary judgment.       The complaint further alleged that Townsend took the

Explorer to AutoNation for repairs only once and did not allow a reasonable number

of attempts to remedy the alleged defect or effect repairs. Townsend appealed only

the grant of summary judgment to Ford Motor Co., and because she did not provide

evidence of a warranty and, further, did not provide evidence that Ford Motor Co.

was provided a reasonable opportunity to remedy any defect in the Explorer, the

trial court properly granted summary judgment.

              Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

__________________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR
                                        Appendix

The assignments of error presented in the brief read as follows:

      1.    Erred in granting summary judgment.

            a.     Should only be based on the evidence - Civ. R. 56. Summary
                   Judgment
            b.     Summary judgment did not meet the guidelines of Rule 56
            c.     Civ. R. 41 Dismissals treated as summary judgments. Dismissal
                   asserted by the court require plaintiff be given notice in pretrial
                   meeting. Dismissal asserted by the defendant requires a motion
                   to do so.

      2.    Erred in striking brief filed 7/6/22. Brief filed withing the 28 day
            allotted in Civ. R. 6(C)1

      3.    Erred in denying amendment Civ R.15(A) states entitlement.