State of Ohio Ex Rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17717

Fouad purchased the subject property in 1995; Fouad is a corporation, with Rachid as president and major shareholder, and Boggs and Rachid have lived there with their minor daughter.
Relators allege the property lies under flight paths of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport runways 6L-24R and 6R-24L.
In 2002, Boggs and Rachid filed a mandamus action in Ohio seeking to compel the City to initiate eminent domain/appropriation proceedings for property near the airport, asserting takings without just compensation.
The City moved to dismiss for lack of standing; the trial court granted dismissal; the appellate court dismissed the appeal as non-final/without prejudice; a later order stated dismissal with prejudice but was not appealed.
On August 1, 2008, the relators filed a new mandamus action in Ohio state court (the 2008 Action), later removed to federal court, alleging runway expansions increased noise, hazard, toxins, and threatened water contamination; the district court dismissed on res judicata grounds, and relators appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boggs and Rachid are barred by res judicata.	Boggs/Rachid were dismissed for lack of standing, not on merits.	Final prejudice in 2002 Action triggers res judicata.	No; dismissal was procedural, not on merits, so res judicata does not bar Boggs/Rachid.
Whether Fouad is barred by res judicata.	The 2004/2007 expansions created new facts; 2008 Action is not barred.	The 2008 claims should have been litigated in 2002; res judicata applies.	No; 2004/2007 expansions involve new transactions/occurrences and are not barred; claims premised on new facts survive.
Whether the 2008 Action raises claims ripe in 2002 or grounded on a new transaction/occurrence.	Expansions and related damages after 2002 were not ripe in 2002.	Relators seek compensation for ongoing interference arising out of the same events.	Claims related to 2004/2007 expansions are not ripe in 2002 and constitute a new transaction/occurrence, thus not barred.
Whether the 2008 Action is premised on a new transaction distinct from the 2002 Action.	Expansions after 2002 created changed circumstances and new facts.	The actions are part of a single overarching interference claim.	Yes; the 2004/2007 expansions constitute a new transaction/occurrence, so res judicata does not bar the 2008 Action as to Fouad.

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio Supreme Court 1995) (definition of 'transaction' and scope of res judicata in Ohio)
O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59, 862 N.E.2d 803 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (Ohio law on res judicata and related preclusion concepts)
State ex rel. Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231, 877 N.E.2d 968 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (standing and merits considerations in res judicata context)
Hapgood v. City of Warren, 127 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 1997) (four-element test for claim preclusion in Sixth Circuit)