Lycan v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)
146 Ohio St. 3d 29
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Cleveland ordinance CCO 413.031 authorized automated-camera citations for red-light and speeding violations and imposed civil fines; appeal to an administrative hearing was available within 21 days.
- The ordinance initially defined "vehicle owner" to exclude lessees; plaintiffs (lessees) paid or otherwise did not administratively appeal tickets and later sued seeking disgorgement (unjust enrichment), declaratory relief, and an injunction.
- Trial court initially granted judgment on the pleadings (finding waiver) and denied class certification; the Eighth District reversed as to restitution/declaratory claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, trial court entered a two-line order granting plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment and later certified a class; Cleveland appealed the class-certification order to the Eighth District and raised res judicata as a defense.
- The Eighth District affirmed class certification and held res judicata did not bar the action because no administrative or judicial judgment on the merits existed; Cleveland appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed class certification but vacated the Eighth District’s ruling on res judicata, concluding the appeals court improperly decided res judicata because the trial court had not issued a final, appealable decision on that issue; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are precluded by res judicata for failing to use the municipal administrative appeals process | Plaintiffs argued payment or failure to appeal did not necessarily preclude equitable claims (unjust enrichment) and restitution | Cleveland argued the administrative appeal was an adequate remedy and plaintiffs’ failure to use it (or paying fines) invoked res judicata, barring the class representatives and claims | Court declined to decide res judicata on the interlocutory appeal because the trial court had not issued a final, appealable ruling on that issue; Eighth Dist.’s res judicata ruling vacated and remanded |
| Whether the class-certification order was proper under Civ.R. 23 | Plaintiffs argued they met Civ.R. 23 requirements (typicality, commonality, adequacy, etc.) | Cleveland argued class representatives lacked standing/typicality because they paid or did not appeal citations | Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth District’s judgment as to class certification (Cleveland waived challenges to Civ.R. 23 in this Court) |
| Whether an appellate court may reach res judicata when the trial court’s orders are not final on that issue | Plaintiffs argued appellate review should be limited to issues actually decided in a final order | Cleveland and Eighth Dist. treated res judicata as intertwined with jurisdiction/standing, permitting review | Court held appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide res judicata absent a final, appealable trial-court ruling on that issue; res judicata is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar |
| Whether standing, res judicata, and subject-matter jurisdiction are interchangeable for appellate review of class certification | Plaintiffs maintained standing is distinct from res judicata and jurisdiction; standing does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction here | Cleveland argued res judicata/standing implicate jurisdiction and can be reviewed in the first instance on appeal | Court held res judicata and standing do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be raised as jurisdictional grounds to bypass final-order requirements; declined to address standing because not presented as a proposition of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata bars subsequent actions based on same transaction when a valid, final judgment on the merits exists)
- State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 859 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2006) (municipal administrative process can provide an adequate remedy at law)
- Shaper v. Tracy, 667 N.E.2d 368 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata raises merits questions and is not a jurisdictional defense)
- Gehm v. Timberline Post & Frame, 861 N.E.2d 519 (Ohio 2007) (final, appealable order must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B))
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 979 N.E.2d 1214 (Ohio 2012) (lack of standing does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction)