Triton Servs., Inc. v. Reed, 2016 Ohio 7838

Triton sued Reed and family members in Warren County alleging conversion, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty based on Reed’s conduct while employed at Triton and his alleged ownership of ten shares.
Those same core claims were previously asserted in Clermont County and voluntarily dismissed by Triton while a direct appeal (Reed I) was pending; this court later reversed and remanded in Reed I.
After Reed I, Triton sought leave in Clermont County to amend its answer to add counterclaims related to the ten shares; the Clermont court denied the untimely motion as legal strategy and procedurally improper.
Triton then filed a second complaint in Warren County repeating breach-of-contract and related equitable claims and sought declaratory relief; the Warren actions were consolidated.
Appellees moved to dismiss or transfer under the jurisdictional-priority rule; the Warren County court dismissed, finding Clermont County — the first-invoked tribunal — had exclusive jurisdiction over the “whole issue.”
Triton appealed the dismissal, arguing lack of notice that the entire case could be dismissed; the Twelfth District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Warren County court erred by dismissing Triton's action under the jurisdictional-priority rule	Warren argued its Warren County suits were permissible and the Clermont proceedings did not deprive Warren of jurisdiction over these claims	Appellees argued Clermont County was first-invoked and the claims in Warren involve the same "whole issue," so jurisdiction vested in Clermont	Court held jurisdictional-priority applied; Clermont County acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the whole issue and Warren County was divested
Whether Triton lacked adequate notice that the entire action could be dismissed	Triton asserted it was not given proper notice that all claims could be dismissed under the rule	Appellees argued the jurisdictional-priority rule divests subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim within the whole issue, so notice was unnecessary	Court held Triton had sufficient notice; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper

State ex rel. Vanni v. McMonagle, 137 Ohio St.3d 568 (2013) (describing the jurisdictional-priority rule as giving exclusive jurisdiction to the tribunal first invoked)
State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko, 135 Ohio St.3d 171 (2013) (explaining the rule can apply even when causes of action and parties are not identical if part of the same whole issue)
State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (2011) (same; scope of "whole issue")
State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St.3d 115 (1995) (jurisdictional-priority principles and effect on concurrent suits)
Miller v. Court of Common Pleas, 143 Ohio St. 68 (1944) (early statement that the court first obtaining jurisdiction may adjudicate the whole issue)
Holmes Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. McDowell, 169 Ohio App.3d 120 (2006) (dismissal is appropriate when the test for the whole issue is satisfied)