Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case
APPELLANT Barry Riddick, pro se
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Adam J. Davis Martin T. Galvin
Reminger Co., L.P.A.
BEFORE: Jones, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and Kilbane, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
A. JONES, SR., J.
Plaintiff-appellant, Barry Riddick ("Riddick"), has
filed this pro se appeal challenging the trial court's
decision to grant the motion to dismiss and motion for
summary judgment of defendants-appellees, Owen Taylor and Key
Decisions/Positive Choices. Finding no merit to the appeal,
In May 2012, Riddick paid $200 to Key Decisions/Positive
Choices to perform an alcohol and drug evaluation and
assessment so he could renew his Ohio driver's license.
According to Riddick, he needed the evaluation and assessment
for the state of Michigan, which had suspended his
driver's license due to a DUI conviction and he had a
holder on his license.
Owen Taylor ("Taylor") worked for Key
Decisions/Positive Choices as a licensed chemical dependency
counselor and performed Riddick's evaluation and
assessment. Riddick contends that as part of his assessment
Taylor was to complete a state of Michigan request for
administrative review or hearing (Form 1) and a state of
Michigan evaluation or assessment (Form II).
Unsatisfied with the results of his evaluation and
assessment, Riddick filed a complaint with the Cuyahoga
County Board of Alcohol Drug Addiction and Mental Health
("Board" or "ADAMHS") in June 2012. The
Board investigated his complaint and found that Riddick's
rights had not been violated. In June 2016, Riddick filed
suit against Taylor and Key Decisions/Positive Choices
alleging breach of contract, respondeat superior, fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious
Taylor and Key Decisions/Positive Choices moved to dismiss
the fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims based on the statute of limitations. The trial court
granted the motion. Riddick subsequently filed a first
amended complaint identifying a John Doe defendant.
After Riddick failed to timely respond to discovery, Taylor
and Key Decisions/Positive Choices moved to have admitted
their Requests for Admission 1-4. The trial court admitted
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that you, Barry Riddick,
refused to sign a written release authorizing Defendants to
release your information to the Michigan Department of State.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that no written contract
exists between you and Defendants.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that a material term of
your agreement with Defendants was for you to sign a written
release authorizing Defendants to release the details of your
evaluation by Owen R. Taylor, Key Decisions/Positive Choices
to the Michigan Department of State.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that the ADAMHS Board
determined that Mr. Taylor and Key Decisions did perform the
service that you paid for.
Taylor and Key Decisions/Positive Choices then moved for
summary judgment. Riddick also moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted the motion in favor of Taylor and Key
Decisions/Positive Choices, finding that Riddick failed to
establish a breach of contract claim because he did not sign
an authorization allowing Taylor and Key Decisions/Positive
Choices to release his assessment to the state of Michigan.
Riddick filed this pro se appeal, raising the following
assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court committed prejudicial error when, for
purposes of the application of the 4-year statute of
limitations on his claims based in (A) Fraud, Count III and
(B) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Count IV,
it, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), granted in part
[defendant's motion to dismiss], dismissing those claims
as time[-]barred, denying Appellant his right to jury trial
on the issue of reasonable date of discovery.
II. The trial court committed prejudicial error and/or abused
its discretion when it deemed admissions admitted by default
and refused to withdraw and/or allow amendment where
plaintiff had demonstrated that the action should be judged
on its merits and the defendants were not prejudiced where
plaintiff via his deposition categorically denied the deemed
admissions prior to the Civ.R. 36 motion by defendants.
III. The trial court to the prejudice of appellant erred
and/or abused its discretion when it failed to enforce its
Order that defendants respond to plaintiffs Interrogatory 1
(see Journal Entry 1/25/2017) thus, denying appellant
meaningful discovery despite appellant's Civ.R. 56(F)
IV. The trial court to the prejudice of appellant erred
and/or abused its discretion when it denied meaningful
discovery from the appellees, by not deferring a ruling upon
or denying appellees' motion for summary judgment and
granting summary judgment for appellees where appellees
failed to answer appellant's Civ.R. 31 deposition after
properly being noticed and prior to the summary judgment
decision, where appellant filed a Civ.R. 56(F) motion due to
V. Deemed admissions in and of themselves do no[t] entitle
appellees to summary judgment when a contract still existed.
VI. The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion
for summary judgment where there were no issues of material
fact and appellees b[r]eached the agreement/contract.