2014 Ohio 1343
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- This appeal arises from long-running litigation by littoral property owners against the State/ODNR over the location of Ohio's Lake Erie shoreline and related relief (Counts I–III); Count I (declaratory judgment) was previously certified as a class and resolved in part.
- After remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, the trial court invited briefing on whether the existing class should be extended to Counts II (mandamus/mandamus-type relief) and III; plaintiffs sought extension to Count II.
- The trial court issued an order extending the class certification for Count II to the same class previously certified for Count I (all littoral property owners bordering Lake Erie) and indicated Count II relief was suitable for class-wide adjudication under Civ.R. 23(B)(2).
- The State/ODNR appealed, arguing lack of notice/hearing, failure to analyze Civ.R. 23 factors rigorously, impermissibility of class mandamus under (B)(2), and other subordinate challenges.
- The court of appeals limited the appeal to class-certification issues, held appellants had notice/opportunity to be heard, found the trial court properly relied on its earlier findings for Count I, and affirmed extension of class certification to Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly extended class certification to Count II | Extend the previously certified littoral-owner class to Count II; same common issues support Civ.R. 23(B)(2) certification | Trial court certified class sua sponte without adequate notice/hearing; failed to analyze Civ.R.23 factors for Count II | Affirmed — appellants had notice and opportunity; trial court permissibly relied on prior Count I findings and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before certifying Count II | Not required where parties were ordered to brief and had opportunity to respond | Required under Warner when a defendant lacks notice of certification hearing | Held no hearing required here because court ordered briefing and appellants did not meaningfully contest certification |
| Whether trial court conducted the required Civ.R. 23 rigorous analysis | Class-wide issues and prior detailed Count I analysis satisfy Civ.R. 23 requirements | Trial court failed to perform a fresh, rigorous seven-factor analysis for Count II | Held reliance on incorporated Count I findings was adequate; no abuse of discretion in certification |
| Whether mandamus relief can be certified under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) | Mandamus seeking class-wide injunctive/declaratory relief is certifiable in trial court under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) | Authority suggests appellate courts cannot entertain class mandamus under (B)(2); thus class mandamus may be improper | Held (B)(2) certification for mandamus is permissible in the trial court; Wilkins does not control trial-court jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. C.P. Chemical Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 1 (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard for class-certification review)
- Warner v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 91 (notice required before class-certification hearing to bind a defendant)
- Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 137 Ohio St.3d 373 (enumerates Civ.R. 23 factors and certification standards)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (trial court not required to make formal findings on class certification)
- State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St.3d 30 (procedural and substantive background of littoral-owner litigation)