Regulic v. Columbus

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 1034

Syllabus

Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint after the trial court had granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. And the trial court did not err in considering the motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for judgment on the pleadings rather than as (an analogous) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Further, mere legal conclusions in a complaint, without alleged facts, will not state a claim. But as read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiffs, the complaint's allegations that city actions regarding a holding tank on city property have caused flooding of plaintiffs' property did not necessarily fall outside the statute of limitations given Supreme Court precedent that limitations periods can be tolled by continuing damage caused by an act carried out on the actor's own land. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part cause remanded.