FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, April 12, 2024
CAPTION: IN RE: R.R.
APPEAL NO.: C-230327
TRIAL NO.: F20-1207X
KEY WORDS: JURISDICTION — UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT — R.C. 3127.16
SUMMARY: The trial court correctly determined that it lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.16 when neither parent nor the child was “presently” residing in Ohio at the time that father filed a motion to have the matter transferred to the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, which was presently exerting jurisdiction over the matter.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; WINKLER and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY V. SWEETEN
APPEAL NO.: C-230365
TRIAL NO.: 22CV-25070
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 59 —SMALL CLAIMS COURT — DISCOVERY
SUMMARY: Where there was no irregularity in the proceedings before the magistrate by which defendant was prevented from having a fair trial, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Where discovery was limited in small claims court and the evidence that was produced demonstrated that defendant was at fault for the accident, the trial court did not err in granting judgment in favor of plaintiff.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: MANTER V. ATRIA NORTGATE PARK, LLC
APPEAL NO.: C-230478
TRIAL NO.: A-2104337
KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT — R.C. CHAPTER 3721 — NEGLIGENCE — CONTRACTS — TORTS — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
SUMMARY: Where plaintiff raised factual disputes which were not relevant to resolving his claims, these were not material issues of fact under Civ.R. 56.
Where defendant assisted living facility presented no evidence to support its position that it was licensed under R.C. 5119.34 and 5123.19, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding it was were licensed under these statutory sections.
Because plaintiff identified a source of duty independent of his contract with defendant, the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff’s negligence claim failed.
Because a breach of contract by defendant did not create a tort claim, the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiff needed to identify a source of duty independent of his contract with defendant.
Because genuine issues of material fact existed given discrepancies as to the kind of care plaintiff needed and actually received, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant as to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
Where defendant’s conduct did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on that claim.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED in part and reversed IN PART, and cause remanded
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.