Colosseo USA, Inc. v. Univ. of Cincinnati
2019 Ohio 2026
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In Feb 2017 the University of Cincinnati (UC) issued an RFP for integrated videoboard/digital signage across six athletic facilities; awards would be made separately as funding became available.
- Four vendors responded; Colosseo and Daktronics were shortlisted and later asked to submit supplemental proposals limited to the Nippert Stadium scoreboard.
- UC awarded the Nippert Stadium contract to Daktronics (purchase order issued May 12, 2017) and named both firms as approved term-contract vendors for future facility-specific bids.
- Colosseo sought injunctive and declaratory relief arguing UC violated competitive-bidding laws and that it was the proper awardee; the trial court denied temporary relief after a June 16, 2017 hearing and Colosseo did not appeal that denial.
- UC completed the Nippert Stadium installation; in Jan 2018 UC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the Nippert-related claims as moot and the claims as to other facilities as unripe; Colosseo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Colosseo’s declaratory-judgment claim about the Nippert Stadium award | Colosseo: award violated competitive-bidding rules; declaratory relief appropriate | UC: once injunctive relief was denied and work proceeded/completed, no live controversy or meaningful relief remained | Court: Nippert claim moot; no meaningful relief available, dismissal affirmed |
| Whether claims about the remaining five facilities were justiciable/ripe | Colosseo: the term contract and RFP created present controversy allowing review of allocation process for future projects | UC: awards would be made separately as funding became available; future awards contingent and not ripe | Court: claims as to other facilities not ripe; contingent on future events, dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court could reconsider its earlier denial of judgment on the pleadings | Colosseo: trial court erred in reconsidering | UC: trial court retained jurisdiction because the earlier denial was not a final order | Court: trial court may revisit nonfinal rulings; no error in reconsideration |
| Availability of remedies for rejected bidder after work begins | Colosseo: sought declaratory and injunctive relief; argued entitlement based on alleged bidding violations | UC: rejected bidder’s primary remedy is injunctive relief; once denied and work proceeds, injunctive relief unavailable (and damages generally not recoverable in common pleas) | Court: Ohio law limits remedy to injunction; after injunctive relief denied and project proceeds, no practical remedy exists in common pleas for wrongful rejection |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 2012-Ohio-3208, 972 N.E.2d 586 (Ohio 2012) (declaratory-judgment actions require a justiciable controversy; standard of review for dismissal is abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977 (Ohio 2012) (declaratory relief requires a real controversy and necessity for speedy relief)
- Cementech, Inc. v. Fairlawn, 109 Ohio St.3d 475, 2006-Ohio-2991, 849 N.E.2d 24 (Ohio 2006) (rejected bidder’s primary remedy is injunctive relief; lost-profits damages generally unavailable)
- Meccon, Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 126 Ohio St.3d 231, 2010-Ohio-3297, 933 N.E.2d 231 (Ohio 2010) (Court of Claims may award bid-preparation costs in certain competitive-bidding violations when injunctive relief was timely sought but later unavailable)
- State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728 (Ohio 2010) (cases become moot when events make it impossible for the court to grant requested relief)
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (Ohio 1910) (a court must decide actual controversies by a judgment that can be carried into effect)