Wood v. Simmers
2017 Ohio 8718
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donald E. Wood, an Ohio attorney and owner of 16 oil & gas wells, received Chief's Order 2015-345 requiring suspension of operations for failure to file required financial assurance and ordering bonding, plugging, or transfer within 30 days.
- Wood timely appealed the chief's order to the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission under R.C. 1509.36 and later moved the commission to certify a class of similarly situated well owners under Civ.R. 23(B)(3).
- The commission denied class certification, reasoning it lacked explicit statutory authority to certify class actions and civil rules are only guidance unless referenced in statute or rule.
- Wood appealed the commission’s denial to Franklin County Common Pleas Court under R.C. 1509.37; the court affirmed the commission and denied Wood’s subsequent motion for class certification in that appeal.
- Wood appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing the commission (and common pleas court on review) erred by refusing to allow Civ.R. 23(B)(3) class certification in an R.C. 1509.36 appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wood) | Defendant's Argument (Simmers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oil & Gas Commission may certify a class under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) in an R.C. 1509.36 appeal | R.C. 1509.36 does not prohibit class certification; commission may apply Civ.R. 23(B)(3) to permit class appeal and achieve efficiency | Commission lacks statutory authority to certify classes in R.C. 1509.36 appeals; civil rules do not automatically apply to administrative bodies | Class certification under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) is unavailable in R.C. 1509.36 appeals; commission properly denied certification |
| Whether denying class certification deprives well owners of due process by making judicial review prohibitively expensive | Class certification is necessary to make challenges feasible and preserve due process | Statute preserves access to courts; R.C. 1509.36 is not exclusive and does not foreclose judicial remedies | No due-process violation; R.C. 1509.36 explicitly preserves other court remedies, so class certification before the commission is not required |
| Whether the common pleas court should have entertained a class-certification motion in the R.C. 1509.37 appeal from the commission | Common pleas court could decide class certification when reviewing the commission’s order | R.C. 1509.37 confines the common pleas court to affirm/vacate/modify the commission’s order; Civ.R. 23 inapplicable | Common pleas court properly declined to certify class; R.C. 1509.37 limits its role and Civ.R. 23 is inapplicable |
| Whether the commission’s denial of class certification was unlawful/unreasonable | Denial was unlawful because it filched a key procedural tool and prevented efficient adjudication | Denial was lawful; commission’s jurisdiction and rules determine available procedures | Commission acted within statutory authority; its order was lawful and reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (agency powers limited to statutory grant; R.C. provisions define commission jurisdiction)
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (1988) (appellate standard reviewing administrative orders: abuse of discretion)
- Univ. Hosp., Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Medicine v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 63 Ohio St.3d 339 (1992) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 (2013) (requirements for class certification under Civ.R. 23(B)(3))
- Citizens Comm. to Reserve Lake Logan v. Williams, 56 Ohio App.2d 61 (10th Dist.) (definition of "unlawful" and "unreasonable" for agency review)
- State ex rel. Fisher v. Nacelle Land & Mgt. Corp., 90 Ohio App.3d 93 (1993) (R.C. 1509.36 is not exclusive; courts remain available)
- Nacelle Land & Mgt. Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 65 Ohio App.3d 481 (10th Dist.) (administrative remedies under R.C. 1509.36 not mandatory when court remedy is appropriate)