State ex rel. v. Davis, 2006-2006.
| Decision Date | 23 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-2173.,No. 2006-2006.,No. 2006-2172.,2006-2006.,2006-2172.,2006-2173. |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. BOARD OF STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, Appellee, v. DAVIS, Judge, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., Stanley M. Chesley, Paul M. DeMarco, Cincinnati, Robert Heuck II, and W.B. Markovits, for appellee.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christian J. Schaefer and Colleen McCarren, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant Judge David P. Davis.
Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Ronald S. Kopp, and Stephen W. Funk, Akron, for appellants Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and affiliated companies, and Merck & Co., Inc.
{¶ 1} This is a consolidated appeal from a judgment granting a writ of procedendo to compel a common pleas court judge to conduct a retrial of those claims upon which the jury could not reach a verdict in a civil action and denying motions to intervene in the procedendo case. We affirm.
{¶ 2} The State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio entered into contracts with appellants Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and affiliated companies ("Medco") in 1993, 1996, and 1999, under which Medco acted as a pharmacy benefit manager for the retirement system.
{¶ 3} In December 2003, appellee, the Board of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, filed a civil action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas against appellants Medco and its parent company, Merck & Company, Inc. ("Merck"). The board alleged that Medco had breached its contracts by failing to pay approximately $50 million in rebates that Medco owed to the retirement system and by charging mail-order dispensing fees that Medco had agreed not to charge. The board further alleged that Medco committed fraud and breached its fiduciary duty to the retirement system, unlawfully acting to benefit Medco and Merck. The board sought compensatory and punitive damages as well as an award of attorney fees against Medco. The board also claimed that Merck was jointly liable for Medco's actions and that Merck had tortiously interfered with the contractual or business relationship between the board and Medco.
{¶ 4} On December 19, 2005, following a four-week trial and many days of deliberations, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the board on its claims against Medco for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud and awarded the board a total of $7,815,000 in compensatory damages. The jury further found that Merck was jointly liable for Medco's actions.
{¶ 5} The jury found in favor of Medco on the board's claim for breach of contract concerning the mail-order dispensing fees and in favor of Merck on the board's tortious-interference claim.
{¶ 6} The jury could not, however, reach a verdict and failed to answer special interrogatories on the board's remaining request for punitive damages and breach-of-contract claim concerning rebates. The jury left interrogatories on these matters blank. Appellant Judge David P. Davis of the common pleas court declared the jury hung on these issues and discharged the jury, but he did not declare a mistrial or schedule a retrial on the undecided matters. Judge Davis and the parties agreed that the normal time limits for posttrial matters would be extended to 45 days.
{¶ 7} The board filed proposed entries, including one that would declare a mistrial and set a retrial of the unresolved issues. Medco filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on these issues, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support either the board's claims for breach of contract on rebates or punitive damages regardless of the jury's failure to reach a verdict on these issues.
{¶ 8} At a hearing on the posttrial matters, Judge Davis stated that he would deny Medco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the unresolved matters and that the board had waived its right to a retrial of these issues because it did not file a motion within 14 days after the jury had been discharged.
{¶ 9} On February 22, 2006, Judge Davis issued a "final judgment entry" in the case, which included the following language:
{¶ 10} "This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict,
{¶ 11} "IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, Board of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, recover of the Defendants, Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Company, Inc., jointly and severally, the sum of $7,815,000, and the costs of this action.
{¶ 12} "Pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 54(B), this Court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay."
{¶ 13} Shortly thereafter, Judge Davis issued an entry denying Medco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the unresolved claims. Appeals from February 22, 2006 Entry
{¶ 14} The Court of Appeals for Hamilton County dismissed appeals from Judge Davis's February 22, 2006 entry for lack of a final appealable order and denied Medco's request for clarification regarding whether Judge Davis had erred in ruling that the board had waived its right to a retrial of the unresolved issues. We declined to accept Medco's and Merck's discretionary appeals from the court of appeals' judgment. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 110 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2006-Ohio-4288, 852 N.E.2d 1214.
{¶ 15} The board filed motions in the common pleas court for a new trial on the unresolved issues, or in the alternative, for relief from any judgment on these issues, as well as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial on the claims that the jury had decided against the board.
{¶ 16} Medco filed a motion for the common pleas court to journalize Judge Davis's previous oral ruling concerning the board's waiver of its right to a new trial and to amend the court's February 22, 2006 entry.
{¶ 17} On September 5, 2006, Judge Davis issued the following "order and final judgment entry":
{¶ 18} "This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict,
{¶ 19} "IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, Board of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, recover of the Defendants, [Medco and Merck], jointly and severally, the sum of $7,815,000, and the costs of this action.
{¶ 20} "Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Supplement Argument for Consideration by the Court and Argument is hereby DENIED.
{¶ 21} "Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial or, in the Alternative for Relief from Judgment and a New Trial, on the Hung Jury Issues is hereby DENIED. The Court holds that Plaintiff has waived its right to a new trial for failure to file a timely motion pursuant to Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure 50(B) and 6(B).
{¶ 22} "Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Pursuant to Rule 50(B) and Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59 is hereby DENIED.
{¶ 23} "Medco's Motion to Journalize the Court's Ruling on Rule 50(B) Waiver and to Amend its Final Judgment Entry Proposed Order and Entry Attached, in which Merck & Co., Inc. has joined, is hereby GRANTED."
{¶ 24} The board, Medco, and Merck filed separate appeals from Judge Davis's September 5, 2006 entry. The board filed a motion for extraordinary relief and to dismiss its "protective" appeal for lack of a final appealable order. The court of appeals issued three separate entries dismissing the appeals for lack of a final appealable order.
{¶ 25} Medco and Merck appealed these entries to this court in case Nos. 2006-2169 (Medco), 2006-2170 (Merck), and 2006-2171 (Medco and Merck). These are all pending before us as discretionary appeals.
{¶ 26} On September 8, 2006, the board filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County for a writ of procedendo or mandamus to compel Judge Davis "to proceed with retrial of each claim and issue not previously decided by the jury." In its petition, the board named Judge Davis as a respondent and Medco and Merck as defendants. A copy of the petition was served on Judge Davis, Medco, and Merck.
{¶ 27} On October 12, 2006, the court of appeals issued entries denying Medco's and Merck's motions to intervene, denying Judge Davis's motion to dismiss, and granting a peremptory writ of procedendo to compel Judge Davis to "proceed with retrial of those claims or causes of action upon which the jury could not reach a verdict."
{¶ 28} Judge Davis, Medco, and Merck filed appeals as of right from the court of appeals' judgment granting the writ (case No. 2006-2006), Medco appealed the court of appeals' denial of its motion to intervene and the judgment granting the writ (case No. 2006-2172), and Merck appealed the court of appeals' denial of its motion to intervene and the judgment granting the writ (case No. 2006-2173).
{¶ 29} On December 19, 2006, we consolidated the three direct appeals from the writ case: case Nos. 2006-2006, 2006-2172, and 2006-2173. State ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 112 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2006-Ohio-6709, 858 N.E.2d 821. We also consolidated the three discretionary appeals from the court of appeals' dismissal of appeals from Judge Davis's September 5, 2006 entry (case Nos. 2006-2169, 2006-2170, and 2006-2171) for lack of a final appealable order and held them for the decisions in the direct appeals. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2006-Ohio-6709, 858 N.E.2d 821.
{¶ 30} On January 24, 2007, we denied Medco's and Merck's motion to stay the court of appeals' judgment granting the writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. Partners
... ... Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183 ... or service do not encompass the installation of ramps." Id., citing Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury (1989), 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500 ... ...
-
In re R.M., 2009 Ohio 3252 (Ohio App. 6/24/2009)
... ... The intent of the UCCJEA was to ensure that a state court would not exercise jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding if ... State ex rel. Portage Cty. Welfare Dept. v. Summers (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 144, 67 ... Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 2007-Ohio-2205, 113 Ohio St.3d 410, 865 N.E.2d 1289, ¶44. Interlocutory ... ...
-
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court
... ... Decided April 8, 2009 ... [905 N.E.2d 1194] ... Barkan & Robon, Ltd., James M. Tuschman, and R. Ethan Davis, Maumee, for appellee ... Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., Elizabeth E. Baer, and Kristen A. Connelly, Toledo, for appellant Associated ... ...
- State v. Batchili