2018 Ohio 551
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Amperor, a Texas corporation, and Priconics, an Ohio sales representative, entered a February 2015 sales‑representative contract covering Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
- Dispute arose over whether Priconics was entitled to commissions on purchase orders from Amperor’s preexisting customers.
- Amperor filed a declaratory-judgment action in Harris County, Texas on February 14, 2017, seeking a ruling that Priconics was not owed commissions from preexisting customers and had been paid all commissions due.
- Priconics filed suit in Warren County, Ohio on March 7, 2017, alleging violation of R.C. 1335.11 and breach of contract for unpaid commissions.
- The Ohio trial court dismissed Priconics’ complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), applying the jurisdictional‑priority rule because the Texas action was filed first.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, holding the jurisdictional‑priority rule does not apply to prior actions filed in another state and remanded, noting the trial court may stay, proceed, or dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Ohio suit under the jurisdictional‑priority rule because a prior Texas action exists | Priconics: dismissal was improper because the jurisdictional‑priority rule governs contests between Ohio courts and should not apply when the prior action is in another state; Texas court’s personal jurisdiction over Priconics was unproven | Amperor: Texas suit was filed first; same parties and issues mean jurisdiction lies with the tribunal whose power was first invoked, so Ohio action should be dismissed | Reversed. The jurisdictional‑priority rule does not apply to actions pending in another state; trial court erred in dismissing. The Ohio court may stay the case, proceed, or dismiss on forum non conveniens. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko, 135 Ohio St.3d 171 (2013) (discussing conditions for the jurisdictional‑priority rule and when prior suits bar later actions)
- Long v. Grill, 155 Ohio App.3d 135 (2003) (holding the priority‑of‑jurisdiction rule applies among concurrent Ohio courts but not to actions pending in another state)