from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No.
Todd, Ltd., Adam F Florey, and Adam R. Todd, for appellee DSS
Reminger Co., L.PA., and Patrick Kasson, for appellants.
1} Defendants-appellants, Pleasant Township and the
Pleasant Township Fire Department (collectively
"Pleasant Township" or "the township"),
appeal a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas that denied the township's motion for judgment on
the pleadings. For the following reasons, we affirm that
judgment in part and reverse it in part.
2} On October 31, 2017, plaintiff-appellee, DSS
Services, LLC, attempted to deliver a load of gravel to a
private residence located in Pleasant Township. During the
delivery, DSS' dump truck overturned. The Pleasant
Township Fire Department responded to the accident scene and
oversaw the containment of fluids leaking from the truck. The
Fire Department then authorized defendant, Eitel's
Towing, LCC, to right the overturned truck, despite DSS'
request that a different towing company handle the job. The
process Eitel's used to right DSS' truck caused
significant damage to the truck. After hauling the truck into
an upright position, Eitel's refused to release the truck
to DSS and, instead, towed it to Eitel's lot. DSS
subsequently requested the truck's return, but
Eitel's refused to turn over the truck unless DSS paid it
for towing and storage services.
3} On December 1, 2017, DSS filed suit against
Pleasant Township and Eitel's, asserting claims for
negligence and conversion. Pleasant Township answered the
complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Civ.R. 12(C). In its motion, Pleasant Township asserted that
it was immune from DSS' claims under R.C. Chapter 2744,
the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. In response,
DSS argued that two statutory exceptions, R.C. 2744.02(B)(2)
and (5), stripped Pleasant Township of political-subdivision
4} In a decision and entry dated July 5, 2018, the
trial court denied Pleasant Township's motion for
judgment on the pleadings. Pleasant Township now appeals from
that judgment, and it assigns the following error:
The trial court erred when it denied Pleasant Township's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting
political[-]subdivision immunity because Pleasant Township,
as a political subdivision engaged in the governmental
function of providing fire services or protection, is
entitled to immunity, and no exception applies to remove that
5} Initially, we must address whether this appeal is
moot, which requires further examination of the procedural
history of this case. When confronted with Pleasant
Township's motion for judgment on the pleadings, DSS
filed both a memorandum in opposition and a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint instanter. The
proposed amended complaint, which DSS attached to its motion,
included additional factual allegations to strengthen
DSS' assertion that political-subdivision immunity did
not preclude its claims against Pleasant Township. According
to DSS, the July 5, 2018 decision and entry that ruled on
Pleasant Township's motion for judgment on the pleadings
also ruled on DSS' motion for leave to file the amended
complaint instanter. DSS contends that in addition to denying
Pleasant Township a judgment on the pleadings, the trial
court also granted DSS leave to file its amended complaint.
6} An amended complaint supplants the original
complaint, so the allegations in an amended complaint
supersede those in the original complaint. Morris v.
Morris, 189 Ohio App.3d 608, 2010-Ohio-4750, ¶ 32
(10th Dist.); S. Ohio Risk Mgt. v. Michael, 4th
Dist. No. 05CA11, 2005-Ohio-5862, ¶ 8. Thus, DSS argues,
when the trial court granted it leave to file the amended
complaint instanter, the trial court rendered moot the ruling
on the motion for judgment on the pleadings because that
ruling was based on the allegations contained in the
original, defunct complaint.
7} DSS' argument rests on an incorrect premise.
The trial court did not grant DSS leave to file its amended
complaint in the July 5, 2018 decision and entry. That
judgment only ruled on the motions for judgment on the
pleadings filed by Pleasant Township and
Eitel's. An administrative addendum to the
judgment, intended to assist the clerk in managing the
docket, indicated that the judgment granted DSS' motion
for leave. A review of the contents of the judgment, however,
reveals that ...