Gilles v. Donegan

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 6023

Syllabus

Motion for summary judgment; statute of limitations; defamation; false light; breach of contract; R.C. 2305.19; saving statute; 28 U.S.C. 1367(d); supplemental jurisdiction statute; plain language of contract; unambiguous language. Because plaintiff-appellant raised defamation claims against defendant-appellee the City and false light claims against all three defendants-appellees after the expiration of the applicable one-year statute of limitations, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment on those grounds. Further, the trial court did not err when it found the supplemental jurisdiction statute — 28 U.S.C. 1367(d) — neither tolled the applicable statute of limitations nor extended the statute of limitations with a 30-day grace period. Defendants-appellees acted in accordance with the nondisparagement provision contained in plaintiff-appellant's settlement agreement and, thus, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim.