2020 Ohio 551
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs T & M Machines, T & M Merchandising, and Middletown Loyal Order of Moose Lodge operate or lease electronic raffle machines (ERMs) used for charitable fundraising and hold relevant bingo/liquor licenses.
- Plaintiffs sued the Ohio Attorney General, Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS), and Ohio Liquor Control Commission seeking a declaratory judgment that the ERMs are lawful raffles (not prohibited gambling devices) and injunctive relief preventing enforcement actions.
- ODPS had issued a warning to the Moose Lodge and charged a different organization in a similar case, and plaintiffs alleged they faced an imminent threat of enforcement; a related case (OVFCC Litigation) was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6) arguing the claims were not justiciable and plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies; the trial court granted dismissal as premature and unexhausted.
- Plaintiffs argued exhaustion was futile or unduly onerous given defendants’ asserted position in the OVFCC Litigation; the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / justiciability of declaratory and injunctive claims | ERMs in plaintiffs' possession are identical to those in OVFCC; defendants have taken a definitive position so plaintiffs face immediate, concrete harm and are "next in line" | No final agency position; alleged harm is speculative and depends on future events; case is premature | Claims not ripe; controversy too speculative; dismissal affirmed |
| Requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking declaratory relief | Exhaustion would be futile (pending OVFCC) or unduly expensive/onerous | Administrative remedies are available, not futile, and plaintiffs were already involved in related administrative proceedings | Plaintiffs must exhaust; exceptions to exhaustion do not apply; dismissal affirmed |
| Standard/appropriateness of dismissal under Civ.R.12(B)(1)/(6) for declaratory actions | Trial court erred in dismissing without addressing merits | Trial court properly applied ripeness and exhaustion doctrines and did not abuse discretion | Trial court did not abuse discretion; dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a prerequisite and actions without it are void)
- State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1998) (jurisdictional limits on courts addressed)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (Ohio 1975) (standards for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Mid-American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 2007) (review standard for dismissal of declaratory judgment actions)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1988) (exceptions to exhaustion doctrine where administrative remedies are futile)
- Schomaeker v. First Natl. Bank of Ottawa, 66 Ohio St.2d 304 (Ohio 1981) (doctrine of exhaustion bars declaratory relief when administrative appeals are available)
- Toilet Goods Assn., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1967) (ripeness test: appropriateness for judicial resolution and hardship from withholding review)