Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Kenneth M. Schwering’s diversity tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court held that the federal district court was required to follow the Ohio Supreme Court’s determination that Schwering could not voluntarily dismiss his state-court action without prejudice after trial had commenced, notwithstanding the subsequent mistrial. The court also rejected Schwering’s argument that applying the state-law ruling deprived him of a Seventh Amendment jury-trial right.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal district court was required to follow the Ohio Supreme Court's answer to the certified question that a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(a) after trial has commenced, even when the trial ended in a mistrial.
- Whether Schwering's asserted Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial prevented the district court from dismissing his federal action based on the effect of his prior state-court dismissal.
Holdings
- A federal court sitting in diversity must follow the law announced by the state's highest court and may not disregard that court's answer to a certified state-law question.
- The asserted Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial did not prevent dismissal because Schwering initially chose to file the action in state court.
Key quotations
“A federal court sitting in diversity is required to follow the law of the state’s highest court.” (at 557)
“Particularly where a federal court has certified a question of state law to the state supreme court, it cannot then disregard the state court’s decision.” (at 557)
Factual background
Schwering brought a diversity tort action seeking damages for injuries and his wife's death in a 2002 motor vehicle accident. He first sued in Ohio state court, where trial began in 2009 but ended in a mistrial after a dispute over the admissibility of an expert's testimony. Before a new trial, he voluntarily dismissed the state action and later filed the same claims in federal court.
Procedural history
Schwering initially filed the same tort claims in Ohio state court in 2003. After trial commenced in 2009, the court declared a mistrial following a dispute concerning expert testimony, and Schwering voluntarily dismissed the action before a new trial was scheduled. He filed the same claims in federal district court in 2010. The district court certified the state-law issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 41(A)(1)(a) was unavailable once trial had commenced. The district court denied Schwering's motion to disregard that ruling, granted defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.