COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70845 COLLEEN CUSICK, : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION NORTH COAST FAMILY FOUNDATION, : ET AL., : : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 13, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 292640 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant Robert T. Lynch LYNCH & LYNCH 423 Statler Office Tower E. 12th & Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendants-appellees: Nicholas E. Phillips 7530 Lucerne Drive Suite 200 Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 -2- NAHRA, J.: Appellant, Colleen Cusick ("Cusick"), appeals the grant of summary judgment to appellees, North Coast Family Foundation ("NCFF"), Michael Misja and Charles F. Misja. Cusick also appeals from the trial court's denial of her motions for reinstatement and for a new trial. For the following reasons we affirm the judgment. This case arises out of appellant's employment with NCFF as a psychological counselor. NCFF is an Ohio corporation which operates counseling centers. Michael and Charles Misja are directors of NCFF. Appellant alleged that during her post-graduate schooling, appellees made representations to her regarding possible employment by them. According to appellant, she relied upon those representations by altering her intended course of study. She ultimately accepted employment with NCFF as a child counselor. For reasons not established by the record, NCFF reassigned appellant to an adult counselling position. Cusick declined to accept this position and her employment with NCFF terminated. In July, 1995, appellant filed a three count complaint against appellees alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel and "public policy tort" claims. On December 28, 1995, appellees moved for summary judgment. Despite being granted a ninety-day extension of time within which to respond, appellant failed to file a reply brief or any motion requesting an additional extension of time. On the basis of appellees' motion, the trial court granted summary judgment. Appellant thereafter moved to reinstate its action, or -3- in the alternative, for a new trial. The trial court denied the motions. Appellant timely appealed and asserts two assignments of error for review. I. Appellant's first assignment of error states: TRIAL COURT ERRED TO PREJUDICE [sic] OF APPELLANT WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF DUE PROCESS, EQUITY, AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. The trial court determined that no genuine issues of fact existed and granted summary judgment. Appellant does not challenge this decision. Rather, appellant argues only that summary judgment was improper because appellees' alleged discovery abuses prevented her from obtaining the evidence required to overcome the pending motion. Appellant's argument lacks merit. Where a party cannot respond to a motion for summary judgment due to objectionable discovery tactics, the proper remedy is a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F). BFI Waste Sys. of Ohio v. Garfield Hts. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 62, 74, 640 N.E.2d 227. Civ.R. 56(F) provides: Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion for summary judgment that he cannot for sufficient reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. However, appellant failed to move the court under Civ.R. 56(F). Thus, as this court stated in BFI Waste Sys., supra: A trial court is free to consider a motion for summary judgment where no continuance is requested or when such continuance is not supported by affidavits -4- which would suggest the need for further discovery. Siegel v. D'Eramo (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 72, 608 N.E.2d 842; see, also, Transamerica Financial Serv. v. Stiver (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 49, 572 N.E.2d 149. A party who fails to comply with the provisions of Civ.R. 56(F) waives any error in a trial court's premature ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 86, 20 O.O.3d 71, 419 N.E.2d 883; Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc. (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 78, 87; 523 N.E.2d 902, 911. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first assignment of error. II. Appellant's second assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO PREJUDICE [sic] OF APPELLANT BY FAILING TO RECOGNIZE ANY ALLEGED NEGLECT BY APPELLANT CONSTITUTED ONLY EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, THEREBY PERMITTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF BRIEF IN REPLY TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION. After the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees, Cusick filed her "Motion For Reinstatement or in the alternative Motion For a New Trial." The trial court denied these motions. The trial court did not commit error when it denied these motions. First, a "motion for reinstatement" is not cognizable under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, "[a] motion for new trial after the entry of summary judgment is improper." Longacre v. Penton Pub. Co. (Sept. 21, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68465, unreported, citing, L.A. & D. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 384, 386-87. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied each motion. Even construed as a poorly articulated Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, appellant's alternative motions fail. Appellant urges this court to reverse and remand because her -5- failure to timely respond to appellees' motion for summary judgment constituted "excusable neglect." However, Civ.R. 60(B) clearly requires that the movant demonstrate to the trial court: 1) that the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; 2) that one of the grounds under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5) exists; and, 3) that the motion is timely. Thompson v. Wing (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 176, 178, 637 N.E.2d 917, citing, GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus., Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146. Appellant's motions to the trial court fail to allege, much less demonstrate, a meritorious defense or claim. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the alternative motions and we overrule appellant's second assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PORTER, P.J., and SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .