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.

Kenney v. City of Cleveland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

March 29, 2018

MICHELLE KENNEY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-15-849922

          FOR APPELLANT Michelle Kenney, pro se.

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Barbara A. Langhenry Director of Law Austin Tyler Opalich City of Cleveland, Law Department Assistant Director of Law Tiffany C. Fischbach Mark V. Webber Law Department Assistants.

          BEFORE: Blackmon, J., E.T. Gallagher, P.J., and Stewart, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.

         {¶1} Michelle Kenney ("Kenney") appeals pro se from the trial court's granting summary judgment to the city of Cleveland ("the City")[1] in this breach of contract case and assign the following errors for our review:

I. The trial court granted the defendants['] motion for summary judgment made pursuant to Civ.R. 56.
II. The trial court['s] determination that the plaintiff filed [this] action after the expiration of the statute of limitations for an oral breach of contract pursuant to O.R.C. 2305.07 was a mis[s]tatement of fact.

         {¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. The apposite facts follow.

         {¶3} In August 2008, Kenney, who worked for the City, transferred positions from the Department of Economic Development to the Department of Public Utilities ("DPU"). This transfer was a lateral move. However, Kenney alleges that "several months" earlier, when Eric Myles, who works for the City's Human Resources Department, offered her the position via a telephone conversation, he also promised her a $3, 000 salary increase. Kenney noticed that the first paycheck she received after the transfer, as well as every other paycheck she received through September 2013, when she stopped working for the City, did not reflect her alleged salary increase. According to Kenney, she inquired about the discrepancy many times and, although "[everybody said they would do what they can to fix it, " she never received the $3, 000 raise.

         {¶4} On August 18, 2015, Kenney, who was represented by counsel at the time, filed a complaint against the City alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel.[2] The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Kenney's breach of contract claim, finding that the action was filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the remainder of Kenney's claims, finding that they were barred by sovereign immunity. It is from this order that Kenney appeals, pro se.

         Law and Analysis

         {¶5} We first note that pro se litigants are "held to the same standard as other litigants and [are] not entitled to special treatment from the court." Lenard v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99460, 2013-Ohio-4703, ¶ 19. In the case at hand, Kenney's first assigned error does not allege that the court committed an error at all; rather, it simply states that the court granted summary judgment. Additionally, in Kenney's second assigned error, she alleges that the trial court committed a "misstatement of fact, " rather than an error. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, we review Kenney's appeal based on whether the court erred by granting summary judgment to the City. See Northern Frozen Good, Inc. v. Moton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99938, 2014-Ohio-825, ¶ 9 (although a pro se litigant's appellate brief was "very difficult to decipher, " the court reviewed the case on its merits, stating, "we will address what we discern to be his assignments of error").

         Summary ...


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.