2023 Ohio 2858
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Columbus sued the State (Mar. 2019) challenging both the original R.C. 9.68 and the 2018 amendments enacted by Am. Sub. H.B. 228, seeking declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions.
- H.B. 228 (effective Dec. 28, 2019 for R.C. 9.68) broadened R.C. 9.68(A) (added “manufacture”) and expanded remedies/fee-shifting in R.C. 9.68(B).
- The trial court heard the preliminary-injunction motion in May 2019 but did not rule until Nov. 2, 2022, when it enjoined enforcement of the original and amended R.C. 9.68 and (erroneously) H.B. 228 in its entirety.
- By the time of the injunction, the original R.C. 9.68 had been repealed and the amended statute had been in force for ~3 years.
- The State appealed; the Tenth District concluded the trial court abused its discretion, vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 9.68 (original and amended) unconstitutionally infringes municipal home-rule/zoning authority | Columbus: amendments (e.g., adding “manufacture”) and expanded liability restrict municipal zoning and home-rule powers | State: Cleveland v. State treats original R.C. 9.68 as a general law displacing local firearm regulation; City hasn’t shown likelihood of success | Court did not decide merits; found injunction overbroad and vacated it; first assignment rendered moot after reversal of preliminary injunction |
| Whether the trial court properly granted a preliminary injunction | Columbus: immediate injunctive relief necessary to avoid irreparable harm and litigation exposure under amended R.C. 9.68(B)/(D) | State: City failed to meet the four-factor preliminary-injunction test (likelihood on merits, irreparable harm, third-party harm, public interest); delay/staleness undermines irreparable-harm showing | Court held the injunction was improper: violated Civ.R. 65(D) for lack of specificity, was overbroad, record stale (delay to 2022), and City failed to prove irreparable harm/other factors by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the trial court could enjoin H.B. 228 in its entirety | Columbus: (implicitly) intended to challenge only R.C. 9.68 and its amendments | State: injunction against the entire bill exceeds relief requested and scope of challenge | Court sustained State’s assignment of error: injunction against H.B. 228 in its entirety was an abuse of discretion and exceeded City’s requested scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (specificity requirements for injunctions are mandatory)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (irreparable harm and imminence essential to preliminary injunction)
- Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, 679 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1982) (flexibility in weighing preliminary-injunction factors)
- Union Home Mtge. Corp. v. Cromer, 31 F.4th 356 (6th Cir. 2022) (injunction specificity and overbreadth concerns)
- Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., 73 Ohio St.3d 590 (1995) (caution when courts enjoin another government branch)
- Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (2010) (Ohio Supreme Court held original R.C. 9.68 was a general law displacing municipal firearm ordinances)