2018 Ohio 1158
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Busy Bee, a licensed child day care provider, contracted with ODJFS to provide publicly funded child care.
- ODJFS issued an overpayment notice alleging $36,742.90 was overpaid from Sept. 2013 to Sept. 2014; Busy Bee requested and received an extension to seek reconsideration and submitted supporting documentation.
- ODJFS denied reconsideration on June 10, 2015, and began collection by withholding payments; collection was later paused pending litigation.
- Busy Bee sued in Franklin C.P. seeking injunctive, declaratory relief and damages, arguing ODJFS’s reconsideration process was unfair and violated due process.
- ODJFS moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted dismissal, concluding statutory and administrative law did not provide for further appeal or an evidentiary hearing beyond written reconsideration.
- Busy Bee appealed, raising (1) procedural due process error and (2) that the court erred by dismissing without granting leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODJFS's reconsideration process violated procedural due process | Busy Bee: withholding future payments deprives property and demands a meaningful review (including evidentiary hearing) | ODJFS: statutory and administrative schemes provide only written reconsideration; no right to hearing or court appeal | Court: No due process violation shown; written reconsideration sufficed and statutes/rules do not provide for a full evidentiary hearing or further appeal |
| Whether trial court erred by dismissing without giving Busy Bee leave to amend | Busy Bee: court should have allowed amendment when dismissal indicated more facts needed | ODJFS: Busy Bee never filed an amended complaint or motion for leave to amend; no obligation to sua sponte grant leave | Court: No error—plaintiff did not seek leave to amend; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) without sua sponte amendment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgmt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (Ohio 2010) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (due process requires opportunity to be heard)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (standard for testing sufficiency of complaint)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (protected property interest required for due process protections)
- Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 114 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 2007) (mandamus as vehicle to challenge discretionary, nonappealable agency decisions)