Mosley v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
2017 Ohio 985
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ron Mosley, a residential customer, sued Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) pro se alleging DP&L overcharged him on electricity bills dating to 1998.
- Mosley’s filings attached prior federal-court pleadings and PUCO complaint filings alleging estimated/incorrect meter readings and double charging.
- DP&L answered and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).
- Mosley appealed; the court reviewed jurisdiction de novo and examined evidentiary material beyond the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Mosley’s claim | Mosley contends his overcharge claim may be heard in common pleas court | DP&L argues the dispute concerns utility rates/billing practices and is therefore exclusively within PUCO’s jurisdiction | Court held the complaint implicates billing/rate practices and falls within PUCO’s exclusive jurisdiction, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbs v. Kendrick, 93 Ohio App.3d 35 (1994) (trial court may consider evidentiary material on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) jurisdictional challenge)
- State ex rel. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 447 (2000) (PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over rates, charges, classifications, and service)
- State ex rel. The Illum. Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 97 Ohio St.3d 69 (2002) (courts retain limited jurisdiction over pure common-law tort and some contract claims; form does not control jurisdiction)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 119 Ohio St.3d 301 (2008) (two-part test: PUCO expertise needed and whether complained act is a practice normally authorized to determine PUCO jurisdiction)
- Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 147 (1991) (failure to properly monitor rate and billing process is within PUCO’s exclusive jurisdiction)