Yuko v. Doe
Decision Date | 14 September 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2016-00281-PR |
Citation | 2017 Ohio 8280 |
Parties | IVANA YUKO, et al. Plaintiffs v. JOHN DOES 1-3 Defendants and GLOBAL SPECTRUM, L.P. Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Third-Party Defendant |
Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
{¶1} Before the court in this case, which is removed from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, are two summary judgment motions filed on July 27, 2017:
The court holds that Cleveland State University's summary judgment motion should be granted, that Global Spectrum's summary judgment motion on its third-party complaint against CSU should be denied, and that this removed case should be remanded to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.
{¶2} According to court filings, on October 11, 2013, while Ivana Yuko worked at a career services fair at the Wolstein Center at Cleveland State University (CSU), she sustained an injury. Later Ivana and her husband, John Yuko, sued (1) Global Spectrum, L.P. (which managed the Wolstein Center on behalf of CSU at the time of the Ivana Yuko's injury) and (2) the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The Yukos contended in their complaint that Ivana Yuko had been an employee of the CSU Career Services Office, and, while she was working at a career services fair, a metal pipe holding a drape, which was designed to serve as a backdrop, fell on her head. The Yukos asserted claims of negligence and loss of consortium against Global Spectrum and they sought a declaratory judgment against the BWC.
{¶3} The BWC moved the common pleas court to realign the parties; the court granted the BWC's motion. The BWC, with the Yukos as named plaintiffs, filed a "New Party Complaint" against Global Spectrum, asserting a subrogation claim against Global Spectrum.
{¶4} With leave of court, Global Spectrum brought a third-party complaint against CSU, relying on a license agreement between Global Spectrum and CSU Career Services Center. In its third-party complaint, Global Spectrum sought a declaratory judgment for contractual defense and indemnification, and asserted a breach-of-contract claim. On Global Spectrum's petition for removal, the matter was removed to this court.
{¶5} On July 27, 2017, CSU and Global Spectrum separately moved the court for summary judgment in their respective favor, with CSU seeking summary judgment on Global Spectrum's third-party complaint and Global Spectrum seeking summary judgment on its third-party complaint against CSU, as well as plaintiffs' complaint. CSU's summary judgment motion and the portion of Global Spectrum's summary judgment motion on its third-party complaint are presently before the court—on the Yukos's motion, the court has deferred ruling on Global Spectrum's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' complaint.
{¶6} Relevant to CSU's and Global Spectrum's summary judgment motions are two contracts: (1) a management agreement of August 2010 between CSU and Global Spectrum, and (2) a license agreement of July 2013 between Global Spectrum, as agent of CSU, and the CSU Career Services Center.
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶8} The court shall apply Civ.R. 56, as interpreted by relevant authority, to the summary judgment motions before it.
{¶9} CSU moves for a summary judgment on Global Spectrum's third-party complaint against it, urging that an indemnity provision in the license agreement signed by a CSU employee fails, as a matter of law, because (1) the indemnity provision in the license agreement, as written, would obligate CSU to pay uncertain sums over an uncertain period in violation of certain provisions of the Ohio Constitution, and (2) a management agreement between CSU and Global Spectrum supersedes the license agreement. To support its contentions, CSU relies on 1996 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 96-060. With its summary judgment motion, CSU appended (1) an affidavit of Clare Rahm, (2) a copy of the management agreement between CSU and Global Spectrum, and (3) a copy of the license agreement between Global Spectrum and CSU Career Services Center. In Rahm's affidavit, Rahm avers that:
{¶10} In opposition, Global Spectrum contends that CSU is not entitled to summary judgment because (1) CSU's position is based on an opinion of the Ohio Attorney General, which is non-binding law, (2) CSU's position that the license agreement is invalid does not set forth any admissible facts in support of such argument, (3) CSU "has waived the claim, and is estopped from claiming, that the indemnity provision is invalid and unenforceable," and (4) the license agreement, not the management agreement is the governing contract.
{¶11} Neither the Yukos nor the BWC filed timely responses to CSU's summary judgment motion on Global Spectrum's third-party complaint.
{¶12} Global Spectrum moves for a summary judgment on its third-party complaint against CSU, asserting that it is "entitled to summary judgment in its favor, as a matter of law, on its contractual claims against CSU in the Third-Party Complaint, where, CSU is in breach of the License Agreement for failing to provide: 1) insurance coverage for Global Spectrum as required by Section 11 of the License Agreement; and 2) defense and indemnification as required by Section 12 of the License Agreement." (Motion, 11.) In support of its summary motion, Global Spectrum filed (1) a deposition of Yolanda Burt (former director of the CSU Career Services Center), (2) a deposition of Matthew Herpich (former general manager of the Wolstein Center), (3) a deposition of Ivana Yuko, and (4) CSU's amended responses and objections to Global Spectrum's requests for production of documents.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial