Lycan v. Cleveland, 142 N.E.3d 210

Background

Cleveland used automated traffic cameras and cited "vehicle owners" under former CCO 413.031; the ordinance originally defined owner by BMV registration and did not expressly include lessees.
After this court held lessees were not liable under the ordinance (Dickson & Campbell), the City amended the ordinance to include lessees effective March 11, 2009.
A putative class of lessees (Lycan et al.) sued for unjust enrichment, seeking disgorgement of fines they paid before the ordinance change; some class members paid fines rather than pursue the City’s administrative appeals process.
The trial court certified a class, granted partial summary judgment for the class, and after remand from the Ohio Supreme Court (which affirmed certification but vacated a res judicata ruling), the trial court entered final judgment ordering the City to disgorge $4,121,185.89 and declined to award a separate time-value/prejudgment-interest amount.
The City appealed multiple grounds (failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of standing, res judicata/collateral estoppel, unclean hands, voluntary payments, and liability for claims-administrator fees). The class cross-appealed the denial of time-value recovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Class: administrative process would have been futile (City’s own rules and Vargas testimony showed automatic loss for lessees) so exhaustion not required	City: class members waived judicial relief by not using the administrative appeals provided in ordinance	Trial court and appellate court: exhaustion excused because administrative remedy would have been futile; assignment overruled
Standing to represent class	Class: named plaintiffs received notices, suffered same injury, thus have standing	City: lack of standing because plaintiffs didn’t use administrative process (argued to Supreme Court)	Law of the case / Supreme Court affirmed class certification; standing argument preserved against consideration and overruled
Res judicata / collateral estoppel	Class: prior unpaid administrative inaction did not produce a final judgment and did not bar equitable unjust-enrichment claims	City: plaintiffs are precluded by res judicata for failing to exhaust available administrative remedies	City waived res judicata on remand (did not press it); appellate court enforces waiver and declines to consider it; assignment overruled
Time-value / prejudgment interest on disgorgement	Class: equitable relief should include reasonable estimate of lost investment income (time-value)	City: request is prejudgment interest not recoverable in unjust-enrichment claims	Court: denied time-value award; prejudgment interest unavailable for unjust-enrichment restitution; cross-appeal overruled
Claims-administrator fees allocation	Class: City should bear BrownGreer administrative costs	City: should not be ordered to pay substantial notice/administration costs	Trial court’s discretionary allocation to City affirmed as not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 181 Ohio App.3d 238 (8th Dist. 2009) (held lessees were not "vehicle owners" under former CCO 413.031)
Lycan v. Cleveland, 146 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2016) (Supreme Court affirmed class certification but vacated appellate res judicata ruling and remanded)
Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2014) (municipal photo-enforcement administrative procedures can provide an adequate remedy)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata bars subsequent actions on claims arising from same transaction)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standards and de novo review for summary judgment)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment standard restated under Civ.R. 56)
Kalain v. Smith, 25 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1986) (abuse-of-discretion standard for awarding prejudgment interest)