Ohio Appellate Court Enforces Reply Rights in Summary Judgment Reversal

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reminds its Ohio Courts that reply timeframes afforded by the Rules of Civil Procedure are not discretionary in WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION, INC. v. SUP SOGGY DOGGY, LLC, ET AL., 2026-Ohio-3932.

On appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, the Fifth District Court of Appeals reminded its Ohio Courts that reply timeframes afforded to movants by the Rules of Civil Procedure are not discretionary when it reversed the trial court’s entry granting summary judgment prior to affording appellants an opportunity to file a reply brief and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Rule 6(C)(1) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure allows any movant to file a reply brief in support of its motion within seven days after service of a response to the motion. However, in Wright-Patt, only one day after Wright Patt filed its Response in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, on March 3, 2026, the trial court granted the Summary Judgment Motion on March 4, 2026.

Noting that “[f]undamental due process principles require that each party have the opportunity to be heard prior to a trial court rendering a decision[,]” the Fifth District strictly applied Civ.R. 6, noting that the rule “allows for the filing of a reply after a response has been filed, the trial court must wait for the time for reply to expire before the matter is deemed submitted” which had not been afforded to the movant. A link to the case opinion and the civil rule in question can be found below: