JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Eric Covarrubias (“appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants-appellees Lowes Home Improvement, L.L.C., Lowes Companies, Inc., Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse, Inc., and Lowes Home Centers, Inc. (“appellees”) and dismissing his complaint. After a thorough review of the law and facts, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On August 22, 2017, appellant filed a personal injury suit against appellees. The substance of appellants claims is not relevant to the instant appeal.
{¶ 3} On August 22, 2019, appellants counsel attempted to file suit against appellees utilizing the electronic filing system of the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts. Appellants counsel encountered issues while filing the complaint, but believed that he had completed the process that afternoon. However, the complaint was not actually received by the clerk until the following morning, at which time it was docketed, and a confirmation email was sent to appellants counsel. The complaint was time-stamped as having been filed on August 23, 2019.
{¶ 4} On September 13, 2019, appellant filed a motion for order correcting docket entry regarding his complaint. Along with the motion, appellant submitted an affidavit of his counsel, outlining the events that occurred when he attempted to file the case on August 22, 2019, and stating his belief that the case had been filed at that time.
{¶ 5} Appellees filed their opposition to appellants motion, and appellant submitted a reply brief. The court held an evidentiary hearing on appellants motion. The defense called a representative from the clerks office, who acknowledged that glitches have occurred in the electronic filing system, but that she did not know if a glitch occurred in the filing of appellants complaint.
{¶ 6} Appellants counsel also testified at the hearing and detailed the events that occurred when he attempted to electronically file the complaint.
{¶ 7} The court ultimately denied appellants motion, finding that regardless of whether there had been an error on the part of appellants counsel or the clerks office, it lacked authority to change the docket and extend the jurisdictional deadline in the case. The court cited Loc.R. 39(H)(3)(a) of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, General Division, which provides that “[t]echnical failures, whether the fault of the courts E-Filing system or otherwise, cannot extend jurisdictional deadlines (such as statutes of limitation or deadlines for appeal).”
{¶ 8} Appellees filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, related to their defense of the statute of limitations and shortly thereafter filed an amended motion for judgment on the pleadings.
{¶ 9} Appellant filed a brief in opposition to the amended motion for judgment on the pleadings and his own motion for partial summary judgment upon statute of limitations defense, along with a motion for reconsideration of his prior motion to correct the docket.
{¶ 10} The trial court granted appellees’ amended motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The following day, the court denied appellants motion for partial summary judgment as moot and declined to reconsider its previous decision on appellants motion to correct the docket.
{¶ 11} Appellant then filed the instant appeal, raising two assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court erred, as a matter of law, by dismissing plaintiff-appellants personal injury action as untimely under Civ.R. 12(C).
II. By finding that plaintiff-appellants meritorious motion for partial summary judgment was moot, the trial court further erred as a matter of law.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Appellees’ Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings based upon a finding that appellants complaint was filed beyond the statute of limitations.
{¶ 13} Motions for judgment on the pleadings are governed by Civ.R. 12(C). This rule provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” In ruling on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion, the court is restricted to the allegations in the pleadings and any writings attached as exhibits to the pleadings. Schmitt v. Educational Serv. Ctr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97623, 2012-Ohio-2210, 2012 WL 2819401, ¶ 9. “ ‘Civ.R. 12(C) requires a determination that no material factual issues exist and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Rayess v. Educational Comm. for Foreign Med. Graduates, 134 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-Ohio-5676, 983 N.E.2d 1267, ¶ 18, quoting State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 569-570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996). Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where, after considering the material allegations of the pleadings and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court finds that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
{¶ 14} We review a trial courts decision to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo. Id. “If a statute of limitations defense is pleaded and the pleadings unequivocally demonstrate that the action was commenced after the limitations period expired, Civ.R. 12(C) relief is appropriate.” Mangelluzzi v. Morley, 2015-Ohio-3143, 40 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), citing Steinbrink v. Greenon Local School Dist., 2d Dist. Clark No. 11CA0050, 2012-Ohio-1438, 2012 WL 1080735, ¶ 13; see also Gides v. Marcus & Millichap, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102595, 2015-Ohio-4383, 2015 WL 6393834, ¶ 10 (“When a party raises a statute of limitations defense in its answer, the defense is available as grounds for a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C).”), citing Zhelezny v. Olesh, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-681, 2013-Ohio-4337, 2013 WL 5450882, ¶ 14.
{¶ 15} There is no dispute in this matter that appellants complaint alleges claims for personal injuries under R.C. 2305.10, which are therefore subject to a two-year statute of limitations. There is also no dispute that appellant was required to file his complaint by August 22, 2019, in order to comply with the statute of limitations.
{¶ 16} Before we can assess the propriety of judgment on the pleadings in this matter, we must analyze the underlying issue of whether appellants complaint was timely filed. The parties clearly acknowledge that this is an ancillary issue to the appeal and have briefed it accordingly.
{¶ 17} Early after his complaint was filed, appellant moved the trial court for an order correcting the docket entry. The motion asked the court to correct the docket to reflect that the complaint was filed with the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts on August 22, 2019, rather than August 23, 2019.
{¶ 18} In support of this motion, appellant presented the affidavit of his counsel, who stated that on the afternoon of August 22, 2019, he filed a complaint on behalf of appellant through the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Electronic Filing System. He further stated that, during the process, he had uploaded the proper file, submitted the correct payment information, and taken the same steps as he had in the past with other successful filings. Appellants counsel attached to his affidavit a printout of a webpage from the e-filing system that listed the new case under “My Filings.”
{¶ 19} At no point did appellants counsel receive an email message or notification from the clerks office that the filing had been rejected or otherwise not accepted. Nevertheless, the following morning, his assistant checked the clerks online system and was unable to find a case number and/or docket for the complaint. The assistant then contacted the clerks office, who told her that they had the filing but that it had not been processed. No further steps were taken by appellants counsel, yet the complaint was then filed, albeit with a filing date of August 23, 2019.
{¶ 20} The court held a hearing on appellants motion to correct the docket. Appellees called a witness from the clerks office, Jessica Kirkpatrick, to explain the filing process and address the circumstances of appellants filing. Ms. Kirkpatrick stated that there was no way of knowing whether a glitch in the system had occurred with regard to appellants filing but acknowledged that glitches had occurred in the past in other matters.
{¶ 21} Ms. Kirkpatrick was questioned about appellants counsels printout of the webpage showing “My Filings,” where the filing status of the instant matter was noted as “i.” Ms. Kirkpatrick testified that the “i” means that the filing was in progress, but that it was not fully submitted yet. Ms. Kirkpatrick explained the process of electronically filing a new civil action as follows:
You begin the filing, and automatically when you begin the filing, you do receive a confirmation number so that, as you stated, you can go back in and edit a filing should need be.
Youll upload your Complaint, put in your parties. Take you — the screen will take you to the payment. Youll submit the payment and then youll scroll down to the bottom and then click “submit” for review, and thats the final step when the case is sent to the Clerks office in our, whats called our queue. It will come to us for review.
{¶ 22} Ms. Kirkpatrick stated that when the e-filer hits “submit,” the filing status of “i” becomes an “r,” meaning “received.” Once the filing is received by the clerks office, it is reviewed by someone on the clerks staff, verified that the document is acceptable for filing, and then the “r” becomes a checkmark.
{¶ 23} Appellants counsel stated in his affidavit that he pressed the “submit” button. Nothing happened, so he clicked it again. He then checked the “My Filings” page and noted that the case of “Eric Covarrubias v. Lowes Home Improvement, L.L.C., et al.” was listed. The case was actually shown twice with two separate E-file identification numbers. Because the case was listed under “My Filings” that afternoon, appellants counsel believed that he had completed the process well before the end of the day on August 22, 2019, and thus, had successfully filed the case within the statute of limitations.
{¶ 24} Since it was past 4:30 p.m. when he had finished, appellants counsel was not surprised that he did not receive a confirmation notice from the clerks office that evening. However, the next day, he still had not received a confirmation or rejection of the filing. When appellants counsels assistant contacted the clerks office regarding this, she was informed that the clerks office had the case but that it had not been processed yet. The filing was then accepted and assigned a case number without any further effort from appellants counsel.
{¶ 25} E-filing is mandatory under the courts local rules and electronic submissions are subject to screening by the clerks office prior to being accepted and docketed. Loc.R. 39(F)(3) provides that the clerk will perform a “clerk review” of the submitted documents during normal business hours and will either accept or reject the submission. “Clerk review” is defined as follows:
A review of electronically filed documents by the Clerk of Courts. The clerk will review the data and documents electronically submitted to ensure the document is signed by the filer, is in compliance with all court formatting rules, is accompanied by the required payment, does not require a judges signature, and that the document matches what the filer states he or she is filing.
Loc.R. 39(B)(1).
{¶ 26} While appellees contend that nothing was submitted to the court on August 22, 2019, this assertion is belied by appellants counsels testimony that the complaint was eventually processed the following day through no further action by appellants counsel. The filing was in the clerks system and was able to be received and accepted by the clerks office without any additional steps taken by appellants counsel.
{¶ 27} Based upon the evidence before the court, the complaint was submitted for filing on August 22, 2019; accordingly, the timestamp should have reflected the same. Whether or not it was accepted by the clerk was entirely out of appellants counsels hands, and there is no assertion that there was any reason the complaint would not have been accepted. Given that appellants counsel had uploaded the complaint, selected the credit card to pay the filing fee, and hit “submit” prior to 5:00 p.m., which was well within the electronic filing deadline of 11:59 p.m., it was reasonable for him to assume that the filing was in the queue to be processed and that he would receive confirmation of the filing the next day.
{¶ 28} In denying appellants motion to correct the docket, the trial court relied heavily on Loc.R. 39(H), which provides that “[t]echnical failures, whether the fault of the courts E-Filing system or otherwise, cannot extend jurisdictional deadlines (such as statutes of limitation or deadlines for appeal).” The trial court stated that it was immaterial whether it was an error on the part of appellants counsel or the courts e-filing system. The court held that it was without authority to change the docket and extend the jurisdictional deadline.
{¶ 29} However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “the expiration of a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may deprive a plaintiff of a right to recover, but it does not extinguish the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.” Travis v. Thompson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 78384, 2001 WL 706366, *3 (June 21, 2001), citing State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 75, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998).
{¶ 30} Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional issue in this matter. Regardless, the court was not required to extend the statute of limitations; rather, the court simply had to deem appellants complaint filed as of August 22, 2019, the day that the evidence shows that appellants counsel completed all of the tasks necessary in order for the complaint to be accepted by the clerks office.
{¶ 31} While we acknowledge that there is a difference between a partys submission of a filing and the clerks acceptance thereof, there has been no assertion that appellants complaint was improper and should not have been accepted for filing. There was nothing further for appellants counsel to do to effect filing of the complaint.
{¶ 32} Accordingly, we find that, based upon the evidence before it, the trial court should have deemed appellants complaint timely filed as of August 22, 2019, and consequently denied appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. “Fairness and justice are best served when a court disposes of a case on the merits.” Sovey v. Lending Group of Ohio, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84823, 2005-Ohio-195, 2005 WL 110449, ¶ 8, citing DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 193, 431 N.E.2d 644 (1982). “It is always preferred that cases be decided on their merits rather than on technicalities.” Sovey, citing Perotti v. Ferguson, 7 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 454 N.E.2d 951 (1983). Fundamental fairness in the case sub judice requires that appellants complaint be deemed filed as of August 22, 2019. See, e.g., Jones v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 2018-Ohio-4704, 124 N.E.3d 390, ¶ 33 (8th Dist.) (reversing summary judgment after finding that appellants complaint should have been deemed timely filed); Rhoades v. Harris, 135 Ohio App.3d 555, 558-559, 735 N.E.2d 6 (1st Dist.1999) (same).
{¶ 33} With the above in mind, we emphasize that our holding is limited to the particular facts of this case. We do not intend to hold that in every case where a party encounters technical difficulty in filing their complaint that the trial court should deem these cases timely filed. The appropriateness of such action should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
{¶ 34} Because appellants complaint should have been deemed filed on August 22, 2019, it was therefore error to grant judgment on the pleadings based upon the statute of limitations. Appellants first assignment of error is sustained, and this matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
B. Appellants Motion for Summary Judgment
{¶ 35} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that appellants motion for partial summary judgment and reconsideration was moot. Since we have sustained appellants first assignment of error, this issue has been rendered moot.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 36} The trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings where appellants complaint should have been deemed filed on the day prior and thus, within the statute of limitations. Appellants first assignment of error is therefore sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
{¶ 37} Appellants second assignment of error is moot.
{¶ 38} Judgment reversed and remanded.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J., and EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR