Accurate Testing Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Natural Resources
This text of 2011 Ohio 5518 (Accurate Testing Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Natural Resources) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Accurate Testing Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 2011-Ohio-5518.]
Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us
ACCURATE TESTING LABORATORIES, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2011-02689-AD
v.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶ 1} On February 17, 2011, plaintiff, Accurate Testing Laboratories, LLC., filed
a complaint against defendant, Department of Natural Resources. Plaintiff asserts it
performed additional work in procuring the names of experts who could assist
defendant. Plaintiff charged defendant $600.00 for the time and effort plaintiff exerted in
finding qualified persons. Plaintiff submitted a copy of a bill dated June 18, 2008, which
referenced an invoice number 121007 for $600.00 past due as of December 10, 2007.
Plaintiff also included a copy of a letter dated August 27, 2008, and addressed to Mr.
Doug Miller and Mr. Brett Barnes at defendant’s Ohio Fish & Wildlife Dept. In the letter,
plaintiff explained that Barnes had contacted plaintiff seeking competent expert
witnesses who were capable of interpreting laboratory data and who would be available
to testify at a hearing if necessary. Plaintiff recalled advising Barnes that considerable work was being done toward this request and that plaintiff intended to charge defendant
for its time. Plaintiff acknowledged that Barnes stated he “wasn’t sure” his agency
would approve additional payments. In the letter, plaintiff requested “reconsideration for
approval of this legitimate billing for our work.”
{¶ 2} On April 22, 2011, defendant filed an investigation report and on May 25,
2011, defendant filed an amended report. Defendant asserted that plaintiff’s cause of
action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Defendant pointed out that
plaintiff filed this complaint on February 17, 2011, in reference to a fee of $600.00 that
plaintiff alleged was “past due” as of December 10, 2007.
{¶ 3} On May 11 and June 17, 2011, plaintiff filed responses wherein plaintiff
essentially reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint.
{¶ 4} Ohio Revised Code Section 2743.16(A) in pertinent part states:
{¶ 5} “Subject to division (B) of this section, civil actions against the state . . .
shall be commenced no later than two years after the date of accrual of the cause of
action or within any shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private
parties.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 6} “Under Ohio law, a cause of action to recover money allegedly wrongfully
withheld accrues when the money is actually withheld. Children's Hosp. v. Dept. of
Public Welfare (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 523, 23 O.O.3d 452, 433 N.E.2d 187.” Osborn Co.
v. Department of Administrative Services (1992), 80 Ohio App. 3d 205, 207-208, 608
N.E. 2d 1149.
{¶ 7} Based upon the documentation submitted by plaintiff, his cause of action
accrued, when the amount became due, on December 10, 2007. Even assuming
plaintiff believed that defendant would approve the $600.00 charge, plaintiff was on notice as of August 27, 2008, that defendant had refused to pay the fee. Plaintiff filed
his complaint in February 2011, well after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Acting Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶ 8} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the
reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff’s
claim is DISMISSED. Court costs are absorbed by the court.
________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Acting Clerk
Entry cc: Accurate Testing Laboratories, LLC. Charles G. Rowan 2779 Rockefeller Avenue Department of Natural Resources Cleveland, Ohio 44115 2045 Morse Road, D-3 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693 6/21 Filed 7/19/11 Sent to S.C. reporter 10/27/11
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 Ohio 5518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/accurate-testing-laboratories-llc-v-dept-of-natura-ohioctcl-2011.