Background
American Express sued Derrick Mayes in Hamilton County Municipal Court, alleging that he defaulted on a credit-card agreement and owed $12,049.83. Mayes, acting without counsel, disputed the amount and counterclaimed that American Express inadequately protected customer data and that his data was compromised in a breach.
Mayes did not timely answer American Express’s requests for admissions, which he acknowledged receiving by mail. The trial court treated the requested matters as admitted. Mayes later filed responses, sought to withdraw the admissions, and requested corrections and record supplementation. He also failed to appear for the rescheduled trial. The trial court entered judgment for American Express and dismissed his counterclaim with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed the debt judgment and the trial court’s rulings on the admissions. Because Mayes had not supplied an email address in his Civ.R. 11 signature block, American Express properly served the requests by mail. His failure to respond within 28 days made the matters admitted by operation of Civ.R. 36, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit withdrawal after his repeated delays.
The court also rejected Mayes’s challenges concerning a claimed clerical error, the appellate record, and the continuance. But it reversed the dismissal of his counterclaim. The trial notice stated only that an in-person trial would occur; it did not clearly warn that failing to appear could result in dismissal with prejudice, and the court did not give Mayes a later opportunity to explain his absence as Civ.R. 41(B)(1) required.
Key Takeaways
- Untimely responses to properly served Ohio requests for admissions are deemed admitted automatically.
- A trial court retains discretion over withdrawal of admissions under Civ.R. 36(B); no separate “compelling circumstances” requirement applies.
- A counterclaim cannot be dismissed with prejudice for nonappearance without clear advance notice or an opportunity to explain the absence.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves American Express’s $12,049.83 judgment while reinforcing the First District’s strict notice requirement for involuntary dismissals. Scheduling a trial alone is not enough notice that a party’s claim will be dismissed with prejudice if the party fails to attend.
On remand, the municipal court may set a new trial on Mayes’s counterclaim or order him to show cause why that claim should not be dismissed under Civ.R. 41(B)(1).