2017 Ohio 7678
Ohio2017Background
- OEPA issued a Land Application Management Plan (LAMP) in 2014 allowing Stansley to use spent lime as general fill; OEPA issued a modified, superseding LAMP in February 2017 adding Rocky Ridge as a permittee and changing conditions and authorized property.
- Benton Township sued Rocky Ridge and Stansley in Ottawa County Common Pleas for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the LAMP, violations of township zoning ordinances, and creation of public nuisances.
- Judge Winters issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the companies from operating until in compliance with Benton Township zoning and Ohio law; the TRO broadly prohibited activities including spreading or burying waste and changing drainage.
- Rocky Ridge filed an original-action petition for a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing (1) ERAC has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to OEPA permits and operations, and (2) state law preempts conflicting local zoning ordinances.
- The Ohio Supreme Court examined whether the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over claims that fall within ERAC’s exclusive jurisdiction, and separately whether preemption or nuisance claims remove trial-court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacks jurisdiction because ERAC has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to OEPA actions/permits | Rocky Ridge: ERAC has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions challenging OEPA permits and compliance, so prohibition should bar trial-court adjudication | Benton Twp.: Claims include local ordinance and nuisance theories that fall within common pleas court competence; not all claims challenge OEPA action | Writ granted in part: court lacks jurisdiction to decide issues that directly challenge the issuance or validity of the LAMP or compliance with it (those belong to ERAC) |
| Whether state law preempts township zoning ordinances and thus removes trial-court jurisdiction | Rocky Ridge: OEPA’s regulatory scheme occupies field or conflicts with local zoning, so local ordinances are preempted and ERAC has exclusive review | Benton Twp.: Preemption is a merits issue for the trial court to decide; preemption does not create a jurisdictional bar | Writ denied as to zoning claims: preemption is not a jurisdictional defect; trial court may adjudicate whether local ordinances conflict with state law |
| Whether nuisance claims are within ERAC’s exclusive jurisdiction | Rocky Ridge: Alleged nuisances arise from licensed activities governed by OEPA, so ERAC has exclusive jurisdiction | Benton Twp.: Common pleas courts retain traditional nuisance jurisdiction and may seek injunctive relief against polluting or nuisance-causing activities | Writ denied as to nuisance claims: common pleas court does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hear nuisance or pollution-abatement claims |
| Whether prohibition is appropriate despite availability of appeal | Rocky Ridge: Immediate relief required because jurisdictional defect (ERAC exclusivity) leaves no adequate remedy | Benton Twp.: Even if merits uncertain, ordinary remedies (appeal) suffice for many claims | Where lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous (ERAC matters), prohibition is appropriate; otherwise not |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2001) (extraordinary writs granted with caution; standards for prohibition)
- State ex rel. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Agriculture v. Forchione, 148 Ohio St.3d 105 (2016) (agency’s exclusive jurisdiction can be enforced by prohibition)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Bozarth, 55 Ohio St.2d 34 (1978) (ERAC has exclusive jurisdiction to review OEPA director actions including permit issuance)
- State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., 143 Ohio St.3d 271 (2015) (state/local preemption requires direct conflict between general state law and local ordinance)
- Atwater Twp. Trustees v. B.F.I. Willowcreek Landfill, 67 Ohio St.3d 293 (1993) (political subdivisions may seek injunctive relief for nuisance and pollution abatement against licensed facilities)