2021 Ohio 4067
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In July 2020 Ohio adopted an emergency administrative rule (Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-80, "Rule 80") banning alcohol sales after 10:00 p.m. under pandemic authority; the rule and the Governor's enabling executive order expired after 120 days.
- Highland Tavern received multiple citations in August 2020 for violating Rule 80 (and one for Rule 52) and, after a September hearing, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission revoked its liquor permit effective October 2, 2020.
- Highland Tavern pursued the administrative appeal process under R.C. Chapter 119 (administrative review) and, while that appeal was pending, filed a separate declaratory judgment action (Nov. 25, 2020) challenging Rule 80 as unconstitutional and seeking injunctive relief to prevent revocation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6), arguing the declaratory action improperly bypassed the special statutory proceedings governing liquor-permit revocation.
- The trial court granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (and alternatively for failure to state a claim), finding the declaratory action sought to circumvent the administrative scheme; appellants appealed.
- The Tenth District affirmed: the court held the declaratory action impermissibly attempted to bypass the special statutory proceeding for permit revocation, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction; the 12(B)(6) issue was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment challenging Rule 80 while an administrative appeal of permit revocation was pending | Highland Tavern: can bring constitutional/declaratory challenge in court independent of administrative process; could not (or was not required to) raise a facial constitutional challenge before the commission | Defendants: the General Assembly created a complete administrative scheme for permit revocation; allowing the declaratory action would bypass the special statutory proceedings | Held: No jurisdiction — the declaratory action impermissibly sought to bypass the administrative review process; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs stated a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Highland Tavern: complaint pleads constitutional violations of separation of powers and substantive due process | Defendants: even if constitutional claims pleaded, declaratory relief would not terminate the controversy and is precluded by the special statutory scheme | Held: Moot on appeal (trial court alternatively dismissed under 12(B)(6), but appellate disposition rested on lack of jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Albright v. Court of Common Pleas, 60 Ohio St.3d 40 (1991) (courts lack jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief that attempts to resolve matters committed to special statutory proceedings)
- Kazmaier Supermarket v. Toledo Edison Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 147 (1991) (where legislature enacts a complete administrative scheme, exclusive jurisdiction lies within that scheme)
- State ex rel. Gelesh v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 172 Ohio App.3d 365 (10th Dist. 2007) (administrative disciplinary proceedings constitute special statutory proceedings; declaratory challenge cannot bypass them)
- Reading v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 193 (2006) (an appellant may raise a facial constitutional challenge on judicial appeal even if not raised before the agency)
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wickham, 63 Ohio St.2d 16 (1980) (declaratory judgment actions can be appropriate to challenge the validity of administrative rules)
- Fairview Gen. Hosp. v. Fletcher, 63 Ohio St.3d 146 (1992) (addressing limits on judicial intervention in matters subject to administrative procedures)
- Dept. of Job & Family Servs. v. Lifeway for Youth, Inc., 173 Ohio App.3d 648 (10th Dist. 2007) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin agency from continuing its statutory proceedings)