Michael J. Mehman, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Columbus Police Officer Sean Noltemeyer et al., Defendants-Appellants, John Doe et al., Defendants-Appellees.
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
brief: Moore & Yaklevich, and W. Jeffrey Moore; Abe
Bahgat for appellee. Argued: Abe Bahgat.
brief: Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, and Janet R.
Hill Arbogast, for appellants. Argued: Janet R. Hill
1} This is an appeal by defendants-appellants Sean
Noltemeyer and Eric Houser from a decision and entry of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion
for summary judgment.
2} On June 20, 2013, plaintiff-appellee, Michael J.
Mehman, filed a complaint against appellants in Franklin C.P.
No. 13CVH-6834. On July 3, 2014, appellants filed a motion
for summary judgment. On July 18, 2014, appellee filed a
notice of dismissal without prejudice, expressing an
"intention to re-file this action within one year."
3} On April 1, 2015, appellee filed a complaint
against appellants in Franklin C.P. No. 15CV-2823. The
complaint alleged that, on June 20, 2012, appellant Sean
Noltemeyer (individually "Noltemeyer"), a Columbus
Police Officer, and appellant Eric Houser (individually
"Houser"), also a Columbus Police Officer,
"did engage in willful, reckless, or malicious conduct,
unlawfully used excessive force and assault to seize
[appellee] without a warrant or probable cause, handcuffing
him, shoving him into the back of their cruiser and for no
valid reason detaining him for an unreasonable time."
(Compl. at 2-3.) The complaint alleged causes of action for
false arrest, illegal search and seizure/false imprisonment,
and malicious prosecution.
4} On January 6, 2016, appellants filed a motion for
summary judgment. On February 17, 2016, appellee filed a
memorandum contra the motion. Appellants subsequently filed a
reply. On August 4, 2016, the trial court filed a decision
and entry denying appellants' motion for summary
5} On appeal, appellants set forth the following
three assignments of error for this court's review:
[I.] The trial court erred when it found Appellants are not
entitled to immunity from Appellee's claims.
[II.] The trial court erred when it found that
Appellants' requests for admissions had not been admitted
[III.] The trial court erred in withdrawing the admissions.
6} Appellants' assignments of error are
interrelated and will be considered together. Under these
assignments of error, appellants contend the trial court
erred in (1) determining they were not entitled to immunity,
(2) failing to adjudge their requests for admissions in the
first filed action deemed admitted in the re-filed action,
and (3) withdrawing the admissions.
7} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper
when "(1) no genuine issue as to any material fact
exists, (2) the party moving for summary judgment is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) viewing the evidence
most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, reasonable
minds can only reach one conclusion which is adverse to the
non-moving party." Lee v. Cleveland, 151 Ohio
App.3d 581, 2003-Oh ...