Stevens v. Little Stars Early Learning Ctr.

2022-Ohio-380

ACE STEVENS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LITTLE STARS EARLY LEARNING CENTER, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal by Sherwanda Black

No. 110602

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

February 10, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-19-926208

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., Frank H. Scialdone and Amy K. Herman, for appellees.

Sherwanda Black, pro se.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Sherwanda Black^[1] brings this appeal challenging the trial court's judgment granting defendant-appellee Little Stars Early Learning Center L.L.C.'s ("Little Stars") motion for judgment on the pleadings on Black's cross-claims. Black appears to argue that the trial court erred by permitting Little Stars' counsel to withdraw from Black's representation and that Black's cross-claim alleged "six (6) distinct causes of negligence actions" that were sufficient to withstand Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Little Stars is a childcare center located in Lyndhurst, Ohio. Little Stars is owned by Asma Mujib and managed by Valda Lennon. Black and defendant-appellee Michelle Brown were employed by Little Stars.

{¶ 3} This appeal arose from incidents that occurred at Little Stars between October 4 and October 8, 2019, during which plaintiff, Ace Stevens ("Ace"), who was approximately 18 months old at the time, was injured. During this time period, Black and Brown were assigned to the same classroom. It is undisputed that Black was not directly involved in the incident between Brown and Ace.

{¶ 4} Ace was purportedly "physically assaulted and abused" by Brown on October 4, 2019, causing him to strike his head on a table. Complaint at ¶ 4. Ace sustained a knot on his forehead and chipped a tooth.

{¶ 5} The record reflects that another incident occurred on October 8, 2019, during which Ace's guardian observed Brown tightly squeezing Ace's arm. Ace's guardian observed finger marks on the child's arm after it was released by Brown.

{¶ 6} The incident was reported to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS"), and the Lyndhurst Police Department. County and state officials initiated investigations into the allegations. At the conclusion of the investigations, it was recommended that both Brown and Black be terminated from Little Stars. Brown was terminated on October 15, 2019, and Black was terminated on October 29, 2019.

{¶ 7} On December 5, 2019, Ace, by and through his guardian and next friend Jazmyn Alexander, and Anthony Stevens (collectively "plaintiffs"), filed an eight-count complaint against defendants Little Stars, Brown, and Black. A settlement was ultimately reached with respect to plaintiffs' claims. On June 14, 2021, counsel for plaintiffs, Little Stars, and Brown filed a "stipulation for dismissal and journal entry." The stipulation provided, in relevant part,

We, the attorneys for the respective parties, do hereby stipulate that Plaintiffs' claims in the above captioned matter have been settled and dismissed, with prejudice, as against Defendants Little Stars Early Learning Center, LLC, Michelle Brown and Sherwanda (Black) Moore, at the cost of Defendant Little Stars Early Learning Center, LLC.

{¶ 8} On June 15, 2021, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice based on the parties' stipulation for dismissal.

{¶ 9} This appeal does not pertain to the settlement of plaintiffs' claims. Rather, this appeal involves cross-claims that Black asserted against Little Stars. On February 14, 2020, Black, acting pro se, asserted a six-count cross-claim against Little Stars. The substance of Black's cross-claims will be addressed in further detail below. However, Black appeared to assert claims for negligence, breach of contract, hostile work environment, or wrongful termination against Little Stars. Black alleged that Little Stars failed to inform employees about the allegations that were filed against Brown or the county and state investigations into the allegations. Black amended her cross-claim on April 15, 2020.

{¶ 10} Little Stars filed an answer to Black's amended cross-claim on May 18, 2020. Therein, Little Stars raised several affirmative defenses, including that (1) Black's cross-claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) any losses, injuries, or damages sustained by Black were not proximately caused by Little Stars, (3) Little Stars did not breach any duty it owed to Black, (4) Black's cross-claim failed to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in Civ.R. 8, and (5) the claims asserted by Black failed based on Black's inability to prove the requisite elements of the claims.

{¶ 11} On August 7, 2020, Little Stars filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Black's cross-claim. Therein, Little Stars argued that (1) to the extent that Black was asserting a negligence claim, Little Stars did not have a duty to disclose information about the allegations filed against Brown or corresponding investigations to Black; (2) Black lacked standing to assert her claims pertaining to Little Stars' failure to conduct a background check before hiring Brown, failure to conduct an internal investigation into the Brown allegations, or failure to review and preserve video footage from the classrooms because Black could not demonstrate that she suffered an injury that was fairly traceable to Little Stars' purportedly unlawful conduct; (3) Black failed to sufficiently allege that a binding contract or agreement existed between her and Little Stars; (4) Black failed to sufficiently allege a hostile-work-environment claim; and (5) because Black acknowledged in her cross-claim that investigators determined that Black was negligent, and Little Stars was instructed to terminate Black's employment by ODJFS, Black's wrongful termination claim failed. Regarding Little Stars' second argument, Little Stars emphasized that Black was terminated based on the investigators' conclusion that Black was negligent, not because Little Stars failed to conduct a background check, complete an internal investigation, review surveillance footage, or share information about the Brown allegations with other employees.

{¶ 12} On September 30, 2020, Black filed a brief in opposition to Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Black filed a corrected brief in opposition on October 1, 2020. Therein, Black argued that as a pro se litigant, she knows nothing about the law, the rules of civil procedure, or how to sufficiently state a claim against Little Stars. Black appeared to request a hearing so she would have an opportunity to orally oppose Little Stars' motion. Black appeared to rely on the doctrine of respondeat superior in opposing Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings, suggesting that Little Stars was responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees. Black also appeared to assert that she was attempting to recover against Little Stars under a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision theory. Regarding Count IV of her cross-claim, Black argued that she and Little Stars' owner "indeed had a contract." Finally, Black requested an opportunity to orally assert additional claims against Little Stars for civil rights violations, harassment, infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.

{¶ 13} On October 6, 2020, the trial court granted Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Black's cross-claim. Black appealed the trial court's October 6, 2020 judgment on October 23, 2020 (Stevens v. Little Stars Early Learning Ctr., L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110053) and March 29, 2021 (Stevens v. Little Stars Early Learning Ctr., L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110389). Both appeals were dismissed by this court sua sponte for lack of a final appealable order. This court concluded that plaintiffs' claims remained pending and the trial court's October 6, 2020 judgment entry did not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language stating that "there is no just reason for delay."^[2]

{¶ 14} After the parties reached a settlement on plaintiffs' claims and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 15, 2021, Black filed a third appeal on June 22, 2021, challenging the trial court's judgment granting Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Black's cross-claim.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Preliminary Matters

{¶ 15} There are two preliminary matters we must address before reviewing the merits of Black's appeal.

1. Pro Se Litigants

{¶ 16} First, we acknowledge that Black acted pro se in the trial court in asserting her cross-claim against Little Stars and opposing Little Stars' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Black is also acting pro se in this appeal.

{¶ 17} This court has previously recognized,

a pro se litigant may face certain difficulties when choosing to represent oneself. Although a pro se litigant may be afforded reasonable latitude, there are limits to a court's leniency. Henderson v. Henderson, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3118, 2013-Ohio-2820, ¶ 22. Pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel. In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-5478, 3 N.E.3d 173, ¶ 22.

Saeed v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104617, 2017-Ohio-935, ¶ 7.

{¶ 18} Black was presumed to have knowledge of the...