Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, L.L.C.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2305.19’s saving statute requires a refiled claim to be commenced within one year, meaning by the anniversary of the dismissal date rather than one year plus one day. The court reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of Thomas Sauter’s complaint as untimely. Chief Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Hawkins, dissented.

Holdings

1. Under R.C. 2305.19, a claim that fails otherwise than on the merits must be refiled within one year, or by the anniversary, of the date of dismissal; the statute does not provide a year plus one additional day.
2. Sauter's complaint, refiled on January 6, 2023, was one day beyond the statutory deadline and was therefore time-barred under R.C. 2305.19.
3. Cox did not control the calculation of the one-year period under R.C. 2305.19 because Cox concerned a period measured in months, not the saving statute's one-year period.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2305.19 permits a plaintiff to refile a claim on the day after the anniversary of the dismissal date.
2. How R.C. 1.14, R.C. 1.44(B), and R.C. 1.45 interact in calculating the saving statute's one-year refiling period.
3. Whether the Tenth District correctly relied on Cox v. Dayton Public Schools Board of Education to treat the statutory period as a year plus one day.

Disposition

reversed