Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Swan Super Cleaners, Inc. v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

December 12, 2017

Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Franklin County Board of Commissioners et al., Defendants-Appellees.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 16CV 6198

         On brief:

          Peterson, Conners, Swisher & Peer LLP, Gregory S. Peterson and Istvan Gajary, for appellant Swan Super Cleaners, Inc.

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick A. Soulas, Jr., for appellees Franklin County Commissioners, Commissioner John O'Grady, Commissioner Marilyn Brown and Commissioner Paula Brooks.

          Wesp Barwell, LLC, Gregory P. Barwell, Quinn M. Schmiege and Jud R. Mauger, for appellee Pelican (Dale) Cleaners.

         Argued:

          Gregory S. Peterson.

          Nick A. Soulas, Jr.

          Gregory P. Barwell.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Swan Super Cleaners, Inc. ("Swan Cleaners"), appeals from the decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas holding Swan Cleaners' discovery motions moot, granting summary judgment for defendant-appellee, Franklin County Board of Commissioners ("Board"), and granting summary judgment for defendant-appellee, Pelican Cleaners d.b.a. Dale Cleaners ("Dale Cleaners"). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

         I. Facts and Case History

         {¶ 2} The Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Commissioner John O'Grady, Commissioner Paula Brooks, and Commissioner Marilyn Brown, posted an invitation to bid on a contract to provide cleaning services for the Franklin County Sheriffs Department. The deadline for the bid was May 12, 2016. Swan Cleaners and Dale Cleaners submitted the only two bids. The Board determined that Dale Cleaners was the lowest and best bid and awarded the contract on July 5, 2016. The contract stated that cleaning services were to begin on August 1, 2016.

         {¶ 3} On May 17, 2016, Swan Cleaners wrote a letter indicating that they suspected Dale Cleaners was using what they believed was an improper laundering method other than dry cleaning in fulfilling the previous version of the contract and that Dale Cleaners should be disqualified from bidding. The inference from the letter was that Dale Cleaners would continue to use improper methods on the contract being bid on. Swan Cleaners then filed the original lawsuit complaint on June 30, 2016. The Board was the only defendant named in the complaint. On July 1, 2016, Swan Cleaners' motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Civ.R. 65 was denied. The contract was awarded four days later on July 5, 2016.

         {¶ 4} The lawsuit was referred to a magistrate for a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on July 18, 2016 after the contract had been awarded, but prior to the anticipated implementation of the contract on August 1, 2016. However, the hearing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.