Lamar Advantage GP Co., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati
2021 Ohio 2422
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Two outdoor-advertising companies (Lamar Advantage GP Co., LLC and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc.) sued the City of Cincinnati challenging two city ordinances regulating outdoor advertising. The suits were consolidated.
- The plaintiffs filed amended/supplemental complaints adding an “Eleventh Cause of Action” seeking attorney fees, costs, and expenses as sanctions for the city’s allegedly frivolous conduct under Ohio’s frivolous-conduct statute, R.C. 2323.51.
- The City moved to dismiss that request, arguing R.C. Chapter 2744 (the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act) immunizes political subdivisions from such liability for damages and thus bars the plaintiffs’ request.
- Plaintiffs conceded their filing labeled the sanctions request as a “cause of action” but said it was really a motion for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 and not a tort claim for damages.
- The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss (and simultaneously denied plaintiffs’ sanction motion). The City appealed the immunity ruling; the Court of Appeals reviewed the immunity issue de novo.
- The Court of Appeals held R.C. Chapter 2744’s tort-immunity shield does not bar a court’s imposition of a R.C. 2323.51 financial sanction against a political subdivision for frivolous conduct, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. Chapter 2744 immunizes a political subdivision from a sanctions award under R.C. 2323.51 | The sanctions request is not a tort claim for damages but a motion for court-imposed sanctions under R.C. 2323.51; Chapter 2744 immunity therefore does not apply | The plaintiffs seek fees and costs (damages) incurred in litigation; Chapter 2744 grants political subdivisions immunity from tort liability for damages and thus bars the sanctions request | The court held Chapter 2744 immunity applies only to tort damages and does not bar a R.C. 2323.51 sanction; denial of dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamar Advantage GP Co., LLC v. City of Cincinnati, 155 N.E.3d 245 (1st Dist. 2020) (prior appellate decision in the same litigation)
- Wilson v. Stark Cty. Dept. of Human Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 450 (Ohio 1994) (discusses purpose of Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act)
- Zents v. Bd. of Commrs. of Summit Cty., 9 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 1984) (background on abrogation of common-law sovereign immunity)
- Schenkoleski v. Cleveland Metroparks Sys., 67 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1981) (historical context for governmental immunity jurisprudence)
- Village of New Lebanon v. Krahn, 50 N.E.3d 291 (2d Dist. 2015) (addressed interplay of Chapter 2744 immunity and R.C. 2323.51 motions)
- State ex rel. Davis v. Metzger, 49 N.E.3d 1293 (Ohio 2016) (describes R.C. 2323.51 as providing courts discretion to impose sanctions)
- Shaver v. Wolske & Blue, 138 Ohio App.3d 653 (10th Dist. 2000) (clarifies R.C. 2323.51 is a vehicle for court sanctions, not a separate cause of action)