Metropolis Night Club, Inc. v. Ertel, 67621

Decision Date12 June 1995
Docket NumberNo. 67621,67621
Citation662 N.E.2d 94,104 Ohio App.3d 417
PartiesMETROPOLIS NIGHT CLUB, INC., d.b.a. Metropolis, Appellant, v. ERTEL et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

McCormack, Wolgamuth & Watling Co., L.P.A., Thomas A. McCormack and Keith R. Wolgamuth, Cleveland, for appellant.

Kenneth J. Fisher Co., L.P.A. and Kenneth J. Fisher, Cleveland, for appellees.


Appellant, Metropolis Night Club, Inc., appeals from the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees Paul Ertel and Jacobs Investment Management Company, Inc.

Appellant commenced this action, common pleas case No. 260927, on November 9, 1993, alleging that appellees tortiously interfered with a contract between appellant and the General Broadcasting Company, d.b.a. Radio Station WJMO-FM, and interfered with a prospective business advantage between the same entities.

On March 23, 1994, appellees moved for summary judgment, asserting that this action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because appellant had earlier filed the same cause of action in common pleas case No. 247015 against Flats Development Corporation and John Doe, but did not name or join either Jacobs Investment Management Company or Paul Ertel in that earlier case.

In the earlier case, on December 30, 1993, the trial court had granted Flats Development Corporation's motion for summary judgment, which alleged that no contract existed between Metropolis Night Club, Inc. and Flats Development Corporation. However, that judgment was reversed and remanded by this court. Metropolis Night Club, Inc. v. Doe (Dec. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66814, unreported, 1994 WL 716515.

On June 22, 1994, the trial court in this case granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, which alleged res judicata based on the trial court's ruling in case No. 247015. Appellant now appeals raising one assignment of error:

"The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellees' motion for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata or collateral estoppel."

Appellant contends the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are inapplicable because there is no "mutuality of parties" in the two separate cases it filed based on the same alleged contract. Appellees believe that appellant's claims are barred because appellant knew or should have know the identity of the John Doe defendant in the first case and failed to amend the pleadings or identify the John Doe in that case. The issue, however, for our resolution on this appeal is limited to whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to this case.

The doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred from asserting it. See Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 69, 25 OBR 89, 90-91, 494 N.E.2d 1387, 1388-1389. The purpose of this doctrine was explained...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Rubin v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 7, 1998
    ...94 Ohio App.3d 529, 641 N.E.2d 233 (1994), or for interference with prospective business advantage. See Metropolis Night Club, Inc. v. Ertel, 104 Ohio App.3d 417, 662 N.E.2d 94 (1995). Star Bank's cooperation seems particularly unlikely in light of Barnhart's strenuous efforts to dissuade R......
  • Gillispie v. Timmerman-Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 11, 2013
    ...effect at all, even of matter fully litigated. Dodrill v. Ludt, 764 F.2d 442 (6th Cir. 1985); Metropolis Night Club v. Ertel, 104 Ohio App. 3d 417, 419 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 1995). It seems clear from the State's papers on the instant Motion that it does not concede that collateral estoppel ......
  • State ex rel. Denton v. Bedinghaus
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • March 12, 2003
    ...should then normally set aside the later judgment." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 146, Comment c. {¶ 16} In Metropolis Night Club, Inc. v. Ertel (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 417, 662 N.E.2d 94, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's 1994 decision that applied the doctrine of re......
  • Coleman v. Jagniszcak
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1995
    ... ... $351.00 Payable to Legal Electronic Recording, Inc., Court Reporters, for the taking of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT