COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 73192 ECONOMY PLATING COMPANY, INC. : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-appellee : : AND vs. : : OPINION CLASSIC TUBE : : Defendant-appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : JULY 23, 1998 OF DECISION : : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-316368 : JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: MARY ANN RABIN, ESQ. 2000 Illuminating Bldg. 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 ROGER B. INGRAHAM, ESQ. 326 N. Court Street Medina, OH 44256-1868 -2- JOHN T. PATTON, J.: Defendant-appellant Classic Tube ( defendant ) appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Economy Plating Company, Inc. ( plaintiff ). Defendant argues the exhibits which give rise to the determination of the court, as well as the affidavit which was attached, do not establish an obligation to pay plaintiff. Plaintiff provides chemical electroplating services. Between November 10, 1992 and February 5, 1993, plaintiff provided electroplating services to defendant resulting in an outstanding balance of $18,374.31. Three years later, on October 4, 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint for the monies owed. Defendant filed an answer, denying all of plaintiff's allegations. Thereinafter, a case management conference was held and a pre-trial meeting was set for March 12, 1997. Plaintiff claims it was at this case management conference that a deadline of June 12, 1997, was set for filing motions. On June 12, 1997 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment arguing the evidence clearly established: it provided a service to defendant, defendant did not pay, and as a result it was entitled to recover the past-due amount from defendant. In support of this motion, plaintiff attached purchase orders, delivery tickets, invoices, and an affidavit of its president. A month later, on July 23, 1997, a final pre-trial conference was held and the trial court noted in its journal entry not able to proceed since [defendant and] his atty failed to appear, court has tried for more -3- than 30 minutes to reach [defendant's] attorney but attempts futile, [plaintiff's] atty present, court resets trial for 8-25-97 until 9-9-97 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant did not file a brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, so the trial court granted plaintiff's motion stating plaintiff motion filed 6-12-97 for summary judgment is granted. Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $18,374.31 plus interest at a rate of ten percent per annum. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, submitting a single assignment of error. Defendant's single assignment of error states as follows: THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AND REASONABLE MINDS COULD COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. Defendant argues the exhibits attached to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment do not support the trial court's ruling. Defendant claims the purchase orders and invoices do not correspond with the delivery tickets and the total of the invoices does not match the judgment rendered. Also, defendant complains plaintiff failed to enforce its claim for three (3) years, it should be held to the responsibility of clearly showing their obligation. Further, defendant maintains it is illogical that plaintiff would allow this non-payment to continue and then wait three years to file a complaint. In response, plaintiff argues bringing a claim three years after non-payment is well within the statute of limitations, which is fifteen years for a written contract or six years for an oral -4- contract. Second, plaintiff submits there was ample evidence presented to support its motion for summary judgment including: (1) purchase orders from defendant which contain a date of order, description, and signature, (2) delivery tickets which contain a date of delivery and signature, (3) invoices which contain an invoice number which corresponds to the delivery tickets, a description, and total amount due, plus (4) an affidavit of the president where he avers he has personal knowledge of the underlying matters and defendant owes $18,374.31 A motion for summary judgment may only be granted where there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C). Additionally, summary judgment is inappropriate unless it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds could come to one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Id. Furthermore, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Therefore, absent an affirmative showing by the moving party that no genuine issues exist as to any material fact, and that such party is entitled to judgment a matter of law, no summary judgment may be granted. Morris v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 45, 47. In the instant case, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which defendant did not respond to. However, this does not mean plaintiff is automatically entitled to the granting of the motion for summary judgment in its favor. The Ohio Supreme Court, -5- in Morris,discussed the requirements of Civ.R. 56(E) as applied to a non-moving party and held even where the nonmoving party fails completely to respond to the motion, summary judgment is improper unless reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. See, also, Toledo's Great Eastern Shoppers City, Inc. v. Abde's Black Angus Steak House No. III, Inc. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 198, 201-202. Thus, the dispositive question in the present case is whether plaintiff established no genuine issue of material fact exists. We hold plaintiff did establish no genuine issue of material fact exists. Plaintiff attached to its motion for summary judgment three exhibits. The first two exhibits ( A and B ) are a collection of purchase orders, delivery tickets, and invoices. There are invoice numbers on the invoices which correspond to handwritten numbers on the delivery tickets. On the purchase orders there is a date of order, a description of materials, and a signature of an employee of defendant. On the delivery tickets there is a date of delivery, a description of materials, a handwritten number, and a signature of an employee of defendant. On the invoices there is a number which corresponds to the delivery ticket numbers, a date of invoice, a description of materials, and a total amount due. The third exhibit ( C ) is an affidavit from plaintiff's president averring he has personal knowledge of the matters set forth, that defendant owes $18,374.31 from services rendered, that plaintiff has demanded defendant pay but defendant has refused. -6- R.C. 2305.06 and R.C. 2305.07 provide the statute of limitations for a written contract is fifteen years and for an oral contract, six years. Under either statute, plaintiff's claim was timely filed. Moreover, the invoices and the delivery tickets correspond both in dates and numbers printed on each document. Plus, there is no evidence in the record which indicates defendant does not owe plaintiff the money at issue. Therefore, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -7- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its 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 direct ing the Court of Common Pleas 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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA, P.J., MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON 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 .