Rascon v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Amador Esdreel Estrada Rascon’s claims against the Ohio Department of Commerce under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because the complaint showed that the claims were filed after the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The court held that Rascon failed to plead facts supporting application of the discovery rule or equitable tolling.

Holdings

1. A statute-of-limitations defense may support dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when it is apparent from the face of the complaint, including when the complaint establishes the applicable limitations period and contains no facts supporting tolling or another exception. Because Rascon's complaint showed that he learned of the alleged wrongful disbursement on November 24, 2021, but did not sue until March 10, 2025, dismissal was proper.
2. The discovery rule did not make Rascon's conversion claim timely because, at the latest, he discovered the alleged injury on November 24, 2021, when he learned that the department had paid the funds to another person. He failed to plead facts demonstrating that the discovery rule should extend beyond that date.
3. Equitable tolling did not apply because Rascon did not plead facts showing that he diligently pursued his rights and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Claims properly dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because the statute-of-limitations defense was apparent from the face of the complaint.
2. Whether the discovery rule rendered Rascon's conversion claim timely.
3. Whether equitable tolling rendered Rascon's claims timely despite his failure to file within two years after learning of the alleged wrongful disbursement.

Disposition

affirmed