Ayers v. KCI Technologies, Inc., 2019 Ohio 3614

Plaintiffs (Aurora East Subdivision property owners) sued Portage County, the County Engineer, and adjacent landowners alleging negligent design/maintenance and property alterations diverted surface water into the subdivision, causing flooding, nuisance, trespass, and a taking.
Complaint filed 2014; several defendants later dismissed; plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all persons who owned property in the subdivision since 1998.
Trial court granted certification but narrowed the class to owners since 1998 "whose property suffered excessive flooding and/or whose property was unduly taken or otherwise adversely affected due to any actions on the part of Defendants causing alterations of surface water through the Subdivision."
Defendants appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion because commonality, typicality, and predominance were lacking (facts varied by year, location, and individual property modifications).
The court of appeals reviewed the trial court’s rigorous analysis under Civ.R. 23, applied Ohio and U.S. precedents, and affirmed class certification, finding a common nucleus of operative facts (liability for altering surface water) that predominates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality (Civ.R. 23(A)(2))	Plaintiffs: liability for defendants’ alterations of surface water is a common issue across the subdivision.	Defendants: flooding events differ by time, place, and source; no single common origin or answer.	Affirmed: common nucleus exists; common liability question (alteration of surface water) satisfies commonality.
Typicality (Civ.R. 23(A)(3))	Plaintiffs: named reps’ claims arise from the same alleged unlawful conduct and align with class interests.	Defendants: individual claims require individualized proof across 15+ years; damages differ.	Affirmed: representatives’ claims are co-extensive and not antagonistic; typicality met.
Predominance (Civ.R. 23(B)(3))	Plaintiffs: issues of defendants’ liability and drainage design/maintenance are susceptible to generalized proof and predominate over individual questions.	Defendants: causation and damages are house-by-house, so individualized issues will predominate.	Affirmed: common issues (liability for surface-water diversion) predominate; absence of liability would defeat all claims.
Abuse of discretion in certifying class	Plaintiffs: trial court performed rigorous analysis and met Civ.R. 23 requirements.	Defendants: trial court erred by not resolving individualized causation/damages before certification.	Affirmed: appellate court finds no abuse of discretion; merits probing was proper and limited.

Warner v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 91 (1988) (requires a common nucleus of operative facts for commonality)
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (articulates seven prerequisites for class actions)
Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373 (2013) (trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis; plaintiff bears preponderance burden)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires common answers that can drive resolution)
Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 (2013) (limits merits probing in class-certification review)
In re Consolidated Mtge. Satisfaction Cases, 97 Ohio St.3d 465 (2002) (sets Civ.R. 23(B)(3) standards)
Baughman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 480 (2000) (typicality and representative incentives)
Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200 (1987) (abuse-of-discretion standard for class certification)
Petty v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 148 Ohio App.3d 348 (2002) (class certification improper where no issue susceptible to class-wide proof)
Crutchfield v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 829 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2016) (individualized causation and damages can defeat predominance)
State ex rel. Huttman v. Parma, 70 N.E.3d 1074 (8th Dist. 2016) (court of appeals reversed certification where proximate causation was unique to each homeowner)