Breach of Contract Cases

Contract breach damages. Plaintiff was formerly employed as a professor by defendant, a state university. Plaintiff was denied tenure by defendant. The denial triggered a final year of employment, after which plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract. The court found that defendant breached its employment contract with plaintiff by conducting an improper tenure review. The court ordered defendant to conduct a proper tenure review. After the proper tenure review also resulted in the denial of tenure, plaintiff was awarded damages for the period of time between the end of her employment and the completion of the proper tenure review. The parties stipulated to the amount of damages.

The plaintiff in this action is a retired employee of the defendant county. She filed a complaint in October 2009, asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, intentional or negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty related to a county employee's alleged faulty advice and lack of disclosure to her concerning the interplay of her disability benefits policy and her retirement plan. Upon the county's motion, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the county in July 2016, dismissing the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court subsequently denied the county's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining issues. Following a bench trial in July 2018, the trial court entered a judgment awarding to the plaintiff the amount of $13,985.52. The county timely appealed. Having determined that the trial court's final order does not sufficiently explain the legal basis upon which the money judgment was awarded, we vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the basis of the judgment or, in the alternative, reconsideration of the judgment.

This interlocutory appeal involves a discovery dispute. G.G., an eighth-grade student, was expelled from Boyd-Buchanan School after he sent sexually explicit messages to a female student on a social media platform. G.G. and his mother, Jackie Johnson, filed a complaint against Boyd-Buchanan School and other school officials. The trial court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims. The only remaining claim is plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against the school. During discovery, plaintiffs requested the employment files of various school administrators and extensive information relating to the disciplinary records of non-party students. The school filed a motion for a protective order. The court granted the school's motion in part and denied it in part. The school then requested permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The trial court granted permission to appeal, as did this Court. In this opinion, we clarify the appropriate legal standard for analyzing discovery disputes. We also hold that the trial court abused its discretion by entering an order that would allow plaintiffs to discover information that is irrelevant to their breach of contract claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the entry of an order granting Boyd-Buchanan School's motion for a protective order in its entirety.

CONTRACTS – CONVERSION – R.C. 4113.15: The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee's breach-of-contract claim, because no contract was created due to a lack of consideration where the employer had gifted a raffle ticket to the former employee while she was still in its employ to enter an employer-sponsored raffle for a cruise package, which she won. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee's claim alleging a violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act where the prize associated with the former employee's winning raffle ticket did not meet the definition of a "fringe benefit" as set forth in R.C. 4113.15(D). The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee's conversion claim on the basis that the former employee did not have a right to possess the prize attached to the winning raffle ticket because she had not fulfilled the condition that she still be employed by the employer when she took the cruise, which the employer alleged was attached to the gift of the raffle ticket for the cruise package, because there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to what conditions, if any, were attached to the gift of the raffle ticket.

Fraud breach of contract unjust enrichment negligent misrepresentation statutory interpretation settlement negotiations Evid.R. 408 summary judgment Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff alleged numerous causes of action against defendant in connection with payments plaintiff made to defendant to reimburse defendant for the costs of cleaning up pollution. Plaintiff alleges that those costs were covered by defendant's insurance policy and defendant was therefore ineligible to receive reimbursement. Plaintiff asserts that defendant fraudulently represented that it did not have insurance to cover the cleanup costs. Defendant asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiff moved for summary judgment on defendant's request for attorney's fees. The court granted summary judgment to defendant and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that defendants presented evidence that the cleanup costs at issue were not covered by insurance, and plaintiffs failed to point to any insurance policy that would have covered the costs. In making this determination, the court refused to admit evidence submitted by plaintiff concerning settlement negotiations between defendant and its insurers. The court determined that such evidence was inadmissible under Evid.R. 408. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether defendant may be eligible for attorney's fees.