Schmaltz v. Wahlberg

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 4293

Syllabus

Judgment for defendant car dealership on pro-se plaintiff's complaint for breach of contract is affirmed. Plaintiff alleged and proved that he gave the dealership a $1000 deposit to hold a truck that had not yet arrived on the dealership's lot, but he did not allege or establish the existence of a contract between the parties. Although plaintiff argued that he was trying to swap the reserved truck for his recalled vehicle, as part of a manufacturer's suggested retail price swap, he did not allege or produce evidence of a contract with the dealership to that effect. Plaintiff did not file objections to the magistrate's decision, which granted the dealership's motion to dismiss. Therefore, on appeal, plaintiff was limited to arguing that the trial court committed plain error in granting the dealership's motion to dismiss. Because plaintiff did not acknowledge his failure to file objections and did not argue plain error, his claim that the trial court erred in holding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is overruled. Plaintiff also argued that the trial court erred in orally denying his motions for default judgment against the dealership. Whether we apply the plain-error standard based on plaintiff's failure to make this argument in objections to the magistrate's decision or the abuse-of-discretion standard normally applied to review a trial court's decision deying a motion for default judgment, there was no error. Default judgment is improper when the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judgment affirmed.