Continuum Transporation Servs. v. Elite Int'l Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 111261 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 3738 |
| Parties | CONTINUUM TRANSPORATION SERVICES, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELITE INTERNATIONAL CORP. L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
2022-Ohio-3738
CONTINUUM TRANSPORATION SERVICES, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELITE INTERNATIONAL CORP. L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 111261
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
October 20, 2022
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-19-917738
Mansour Gavin LPA, Brendon P. Friesen, and Kenneth E. Smith, for appellees.
Schneider Smeltz Spieth Bell LLP, Mark M. Mikhaiel, and Ryan P. Nowlin, for appellee Dometic Corporation.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Continuum Transportation Services, Ltd. ("Continuum") seeks to have the damages granted by summary judgment in its favor
against Dometic Corporation ("Dometic") reversed. Continuum alleges that the trial court did not apply the correct law in determining the damages due. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining damages, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS
{¶ 2} Dometic is a manufacturer of goods for recreational vehicles. Continuum is a trucking company. Elite International Corp, LLC, is a freight forwarder. In 2017, Dometic used Elite for shipping. Elite contracted with Continuum to move goods from Illinois to Dometic's locations in several states. There is no dispute that Continuum transported goods, invoiced $51,003.57 to Elite, and was not paid. There is also no dispute that Elite received partial payment from Dometic for the transportation of the goods invoiced by Continuum.
{¶ 3} On July 3, 2019, Continuum filed suit to recover the amount due on its invoices for transporting goods. Continuum amended its complaint twice and, in all, asserted claims against Dometic and one of its employees; Elite and its owners, Kathy Spencer and Sam Marcello; as well as two insurers, Avalon Risk Management, Inc. and Southwest Marine and General Insurance Co. Pertinent to this appeal, Continuum asserted three causes of action under Ohio law against Dometic and its employee: promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Continuum did not make contract claims against Dometic, nor did it assert any claims under the Interstate Commerce Act.
{¶ 4} By May 10, 2021, Continuum obtained default judgments against Elite and Marcello. The claims against the insurers were dismissed. On June 28, 2021, with only claims remaining against Dometic, its employee, and the Estate of Kathy Spencer,[1] Continuum moved for summary judgment against the remaining parties.
{¶ 5} In seeking summary judgment on its claims against Dometic,[2]Continuum argued that it was entitled to full payment for its services because of a "bedrock rule" of law in carriage cases. Continuum argued that this rule provides the carrier of goods is entitled to payment, even if the consignor or consignee of the goods already paid a shipping agent for those services. Dometic asserted that it was not liable to Continuum because it paid Elite for the shipping performed by Continuum and that the "bedrock rule" relied upon by Continuum was not applicable to the claims made in the complaint. Dometic did admit that it was liable for the portion of the work Continuum performed that it did not pay Elite for.
{¶ 6} After briefing was completed on the motion for summary judgment, Dometic produced bills of lading regarding the goods transported by Elite. The bills of lading pertained to the shipment of the goods from overseas to Illinois, listed
Dometic as the consignee, Elite as forwarding Agent, but did not reference Continuum.
{¶ 7} On September 22, 2021, the trial court issued a partial ruling on Continuum's motion for summary judgment. It found Dometic liable to Continuum in the amount of $7,920, the difference between the invoices presented by Continuum and the amount Dometic paid Elite. It further found in favor of Continuum on its claims against Spencer's estate and ordered briefing regarding further damages against Spencer's estate. This journal entry did not dispose of all claims against all parties in the lawsuit, nor did it include language that indicated there was no just reason for delay for an appeal to be taken.
{¶ 8} In explaining its ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court distinguished the cases Continuum relied on for the proposition that it was entitled to payment from Dometic because those cases found liability based on the language in the bills of lading. It also reviewed the legal requirements of Continuum's causes of action, found against Continuum on its claim of promissory estoppel, and determined "that equity is served here by judgment in favor of Continuum against Dometic in the amount of $7,972.00, reflective of the amount owed by Dometic to Elite for plaintiffs services under Dometic's contract with Elite."
{¶ 9} On October 6, 2021, Continuum filed affidavits in support of its claim for further damages against Spencer's estate. It also filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60 alleging that Dometic violated discovery rules by not timely providing bills of lading and asking the trial court to reconsider the award
of damages against Dometic based upon those bills of lading and to further award Continuum sanctions for Dometic's discovery violation.
{¶ 10} On January 18, 2022, the trial court issued a further judgment entry on Continuum's summary judgment motion. The trial court awarded Continuum additional damages against Spencer's estate. On the same date, the trial court denied Continuum's motion for relief from judgment.
{¶ 11} Continuum appeals the September 22, 2021 journal entry granting it summary judgment against Dometic and the trial court's January 18, 2022 denial of its motion for relief from judgment.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Continuum's appeal of the January 18, 2022 journal entry was timely filed and it may assert error in the trial court's September 22, 2021 journal entry
{¶ 12} Within this appeal, Dometic filed a motion to dismiss Continuum's first assignment of error contending that Continuum did not timely appeal the September 22, 2021 journal entry. Dometic asserts that this entry resolved all of Continuum's claims against it and, as such, the journal entry was a final appealable order that Continuum did not timely appeal. Continuum argues that the September 22, 2021 journal entry was not a final appealable order and that it timely filed this appeal after the trial court disposed of all claims against all parties on January 18, 2022.
{¶ 13} The lawsuit in this case contained several claims against several parties. In the September 22, 2021 journal entry, the trial court did not dispose of
all claims against all parties in the lawsuit. Where an order determines one or more of the claims against one or more parties in a lawsuit, but does not resolve all claims against all parties, Civ.R. 54 allows a court to recognize such order as being final. However, for that order to be appealable, the order must be both final pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 and the trial court must comply with Civ.R. 54(B)(2). Stewart v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 45 Ohio St.3d 124, 127, 543 N.E.2d 1200 (1989), Boyd v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90315, 2008-Ohio-3044, ¶ 10-11, citing Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 96, 540 N.E.2d 1381 (1989).
{¶ 14} In this case, the September 22, 2021 order was a final order as to all claims against Dometic, but because all claims against all parties had not yet been resolved, that order could only have been appealed had the trial court complied with Civ.R. 54(B). Because the trial court did not include Civ.R. 54(B) language that there was not just cause for delay, the September 22, 2021 journal entry was not a final, appealable order upon which an appeal could be taken. Continuum timely filed its appeal following the trial court's resolution of all remaining claims and defendants in the January 18, 2022 journal entry. Dometic's motion to dismiss Continuum's first assignment of error is not well taken.
B. Continuum's assignments of error
{¶ 15} Continuum asserts three assignments of error. The first reads:
The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting only partial summary judgment to appellant on its equitable, quasi- contractual claims against appellee Dometic corporation via an award of only a portion of appellant's damages.
{¶ 16} Under this assignment of error, Continuum makes two distinct arguments 1) the trial court failed to apply the correct measure of damages and 2) the trial court was incorrect to require Continuum to file bills of lading in order to apply the correct law to determine damages.
{¶ 17} The second assignment of error reads:
The trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for partial relief from judgment without hearing and without providing rationale for its decision after appellant demonstrated that appellee had withheld relevant evidence until after the close of discovery and after briefing on appellant's motion for summary judgment had been completed.
{¶ 18} Continuum argues that the trial court should have granted its motion for partial relief from judgment because Dometic withheld the bills of lading until after the briefing for summary judgment was completed. Additionally, Continuum argues that the trial court should have held a hearing on the motion for partial relief where the trial court decided the motion for summary judgment without the bills of lading.
{¶ 19} The third assignment of error reads:
The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award relief to Continuum under Civ. R. 37(c)(1) for appellee Dometic corporation's withholding of relevant evidence in discovery that prejudiced appellant's case.
{¶ 20} Continuum argues that Dometic should have been sanctioned for providing the bills of lading after summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial