State v. Big Sky Drilling, Inc.
2017 Ohio 7511
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- In 2012 the Ohio Attorney General (AGO) sued Big Sky Energy, Inc. (BSE) in Ashtabula C.P. for alleged pollution and wetland impacts under R.C. Chapter 6111; BSE's statutory agent is Robert W. Barr, Sr.
- The AGO amended the complaint in 2016 to add related Big Sky entities (BSD, BSP, BSW) and Robert and Laura Barr.
- BSE (and Barrs) counterclaimed and filed a third-party complaint alleging abuse of process, originally naming OEPA employee Larry Reeder; OEPA was later substituted for Reeder.
- AGO moved for summary judgment in the Court of Claims, arguing (1) Big Sky’s claims are time‑barred under R.C. 2743.16(A), (2) the AGO sued in a representative capacity and is not an opposing party for counterclaims, (3) no vicarious liability for OEPA employee, (4) OEPA did not use process, and (5) the facts do not state abuse of process.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for the AGO and OEPA, concluding Big Sky’s claims were untimely, the AGO sued only in a representative capacity, OEPA/AGO could not be held liable for abuse of process as a matter of law, and remanded the original enforcement action to Ashtabula County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Big Sky: claims relate to conduct revealed in 2013; timely removal in 2016 | AGO: claims accrued Jan 5, 2012 (or Oct 13, 2013) and were filed after two‑year limit | Court: claims time‑barred under R.C. 2743.16(A) |
| Real‑party/representative capacity (can AGO be sued) | Big Sky: AGO is a proper opposing party for abuse of process | AGO: sued in representative capacity for the State/public and is not subject to counterclaims | Court: AGO sued only in representative capacity; not amenable to counterclaim |
| Vicarious liability/agency (OEPA employee Reeder) | Big Sky: AGO/OEPA responsible for Reeder’s alleged misconduct | AGO: AGO does not control OEPA; OEPA merely authorized AGO to sue; no vicarious liability | Court: AGO not vicariously liable for OEPA employee; OEPA did not itself employ process; abuse claim fails |
| Sufficiency of abuse of process claim | Big Sky: AGO used enforcement process to coerce settlement and cause financial harm | AGO: R.C. 6111.07 authorizes enforcement suits; no ulterior improper purpose shown | Court: Even if facts accepted, legal standard for abuse of process not met; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (Ohio 2004) (summary judgment standard)
- Temple v. Wean United, 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment standard)
- Robb v. Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, 75 Ohio St.3d 264 (Ohio 1996) (abuse of process defined as using court to obtain relief court cannot order)
- Clermont Envtl. Reclamation Co. v. Hancock, 16 Ohio App.3d 9 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (elements and distinguishing malicious prosecution from abuse of process)
- Benjamin v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 167 Ohio App.3d 350 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (counterclaims permitted only against opposing party in capacity sued)