Cross v. Univ. of Toledo
2022 Ohio 3825
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In March 2020 University of Toledo (UT) moved Spring classes online, closed residence halls, and issued limited room/board credits but no tuition refunds.
- Trevor Cross sued (Apr. 28, 2020) on behalf of three putative classes (Tuition, Room & Board, Fee), asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment and seeking prorated refunds or reductions.
- Cross submitted an expert report by economist Ted Tatos proposing a class-wide damages methodology based on differences between in‑person, traditional online, and "emergency remote teaching" (ERT).
- At the certification hearing the trial court restricted inquiry into merits, relied minimally on the record, and certified all three classes without modifying the class definitions.
- The Tenth District reversed: the trial court abused its discretion by failing to perform the rigorous, merits‑overlapping analysis Civ.R. 23 requires—especially on commonality, predominance, and superiority—and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality (Civ.R. 23(A)(2)) | Cross: all class members share common questions (e.g., entitlement to remediation for lost in‑person instruction). | UT: no single common injury — thousands of students, courses, and instructors; claims depend on individualized facts. | Court: trial court failed to identify a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution; certification unsound; remand. |
| Predominance (Civ.R. 23(B)(3)) | Cross: common liability questions predominate; Tatos offers a class‑wide damages model. | UT: predominance defeated because proof of injury and damages is individualized; Tatos’s model speculative and contradicted by UT experts. | Court: trial court’s predominance analysis was conclusory; failed to analyze whether common proof can show injury‑in‑fact for all members; remand. |
| Role of Merits and Expert Evidence at Certification | Cross: certification may be based on common liability; deep merits not required at certification. | UT: because merits issues overlap, the court must evaluate competing expert methodologies and merits‑based evidence at certification. | Court: trial court improperly avoided merits overlap and improperly curtailed consideration of expert evidence; must consider such evidence on remand. |
| Superiority / Manageability (Civ.R. 23(B)(3)) | Cross: class action is superior for judicial economy and uniformity. | UT: manageability concerns and individual issues counsel against class treatment. | Court: superiority analysis was cursory and relied on forum desirability (irrelevant here); remand for rigorous evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (predominance requires rigorous analysis of model tying damages to legal theory)
- Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 329 (2015) (Ohio rule endorses rigorous, merits‑overlapping analysis and requires proof of injury‑in‑fact)
- Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373 (2013) (plaintiff bears burden by preponderance to prove Civ.R. 23 requirements)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Savs. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard; trial court expertise and case‑management deference but bounded by Civ.R. 23)