2013 Ohio 5602
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Judy and Gary Littleton sued private defendants in Holmes County after Judy was injured in an automobile accident involving Theodore Glancy, an employee of Gilliano Motor Transport.
- Gilliano and Glancy sought leave in Holmes County to file a third-party complaint against the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for contribution/indemnity; the common pleas court denied leave.
- Appellants then filed a third-party complaint and a petition for removal in the Ohio Court of Claims naming ODOT and other original parties; ODOT moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Court of Claims (Judge Clark) initially denied ODOT’s motion as a technical defect in removal; a subsequent judge (Judge McGrath) reversed, granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded to Holmes County.
- Appellants appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether the Court of Claims had subject-matter jurisdiction and affirmed dismissal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Claims had jurisdiction over the removed action | Gilliano/Glancy argued removal was proper and the Court of Claims could adjudicate the case despite technical defects | ODOT argued it was never made a third-party defendant in the common pleas action, so removal under R.C. 2743.03(E)(1) was improper | Held: No jurisdiction — removal was improper because the state was not made a third-party defendant in the original action; remand affirmed |
| Whether the Court of Claims should have treated the filing as an original action against the state | Appellants argued the Court could construe the filing as an original action to retain jurisdiction | ODOT and Court: original actions in Court of Claims may name only the state as defendant; appellants named private parties so filing could not be an original claim against the state | Held: Court did not err in refusing to treat the filing as an original action; non-state defendants would have been dismissed and the Court lacked jurisdiction over the mixed filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucki v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 197 Ohio App.3d 108 (10th Dist. 2011) (de novo review applied to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Steward v. State, 8 Ohio App.3d 297 (10th Dist. 1983) (Court of Claims is a court of limited, statutorily-conferred jurisdiction)
- Nease v. Med. Coll. Hosp., 64 Ohio St.3d 396 (Ohio 1992) (remand under R.C. 2743.03(E)(2) is permissive; Court of Claims may retain jurisdiction to resolve remaining issues)
- Hitch v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 114 Ohio App.3d 229 (10th Dist. 1996) (procedural challenge to removal not fatal when state aware and did not object)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 104 Ohio App.3d 210 (10th Dist. 1995) (only state agencies/instrumentalities may be defendants in original Court of Claims actions)