Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 145 Ohio St. 3d 329

Background

Jeffrey and Stacy Felix sued Ganley Chevrolet and Ganley Management in two consolidated class actions alleging the dealer used an unconscionable arbitration clause and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA).
The purchase contracts contained an arbitration clause and a financing representation (zero-percent financing) that the Felixes allege was not honored; the Felixes ultimately brought class claims and individual relief claims under R.C. Chapter 1345.
The trial court certified a broad class of consumers who signed similar purchase agreements and awarded $200 per transaction to each class member, finding the arbitration clause violated the OCSPA.
The Eighth District affirmed class certification; Ganley sought review in this court on whether OCSPA class members must have sustained actual injury and whether class certification may include uninjured members.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that for OCSPA class claims under former R.C. 1345.09(B) (and consistent with Civ.R. 23), all class members must have suffered injury proximately caused by the challenged conduct; because the certified class included members with no showing of injury, the court vacated certification and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCSPA class members must have suffered actual injury	Felixes argued class certification may proceed without showing each member sustained actual damages as long as common issues predominate	Ganley argued R.C. 1345.09(B) and Civ.R. 23 require showing that class members sustained actual damages caused by defendant	Held: All members of an OCSPA class must have suffered injury proximately caused by the challenged conduct; certification failed because no showing all class members were injured
Whether trial court could award statutory or flat damages to all class members without individual injury proof	Felixes sought classwide relief and trial court awarded $200 per transaction to each class member	Ganley contended statute bars treble/statutory damages in class actions and damages require proof of actual harm	Held: No authority to award statutory/flat damages to class members absent showing of injury; trial court’s per-member $200 award was improper
Whether Civ.R. 23 predominance is satisfied when some class members may be uninjured	Felixes argued common legal issue (unconscionability) predominated and damages amount can be individualized later	Ganley argued predominance fails if class includes members who could not have been harmed	Held: Predominance requires proof through common evidence that all class members were injured (fact of damage); lacking that, Civ.R. 23(B)(3) not met
Whether appellate review was premature because damages questions were unresolved	Felixes argued issues of damages were for later proceedings and not for certification review	Ganley argued damage limitation in OCSPA impacts certification and is appropriately reviewed now	Held: OCSPA damage limitation is relevant to certification; appellate review of certification and the absence of proof of classwide injury was appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (class cohesion and predominance analysis)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (rigorous analysis required at class-certification stage)
Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 (2013) (Ohio courts may look to federal precedent interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 when construing Civ.R. 23)
Whitaker v. M. T. Automotive, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 177 (2006) (OCSPA damages include actual and compensatory damages and discuss remedies)
Warner v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 91 (1988) (appellate remand guidance when trial court abused discretion in class crafting)
Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (requirement that plaintiffs show fact of damages, not merely amount, at certification stage)