Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Agrawal
2014 Ohio 920
Ohio Ct. App.
2014
Check Treatment

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY v. SUDESH AGRAWAL

No. 96413

Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

March 13, 2014

2014-Ohio-920

Celebrezze, P.J., Jones, J., and E.A. Gallagher, J.

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-536588

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Irene C. Keyse-Walker
Tucker Ellis, L.L.P.
950 Main Avenue
Suite 1100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113-7213

Brett K. Bacon
Gregory R. Farkas
Colleen C. Murnane
Frantz Ward, L.L.P.
127 Public Square
25th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1999

Thomas M. Byrne
Stacey M. Mohr
Valerie S. Sanders
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P.
999 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996

Loren L. Alikhan
Jonathan Hacker
O’Melveny & Myers, L.L.P.
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Anand N. Misra
The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C.
3659 Green Road
Suite 100
Beachwood, Ohio 44122

Robert S. Belovich
9100 South Hills Boulevard
Suite 300
Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:

{¶1} This cause is before us on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for further review of our decision released December 15, 2011.1

{¶2} On review of appellant Ford Motor Credit Company’s proposition of law that

[c]laims for breach of contract, fraud, and nondisclosure involving a standardized contract cannot be certified as a class action when individualized inquiries are necessary to determine (a) whether each claimant’s contract was actually violated or misrepresented, and (b) whether each claimant suffered economic harm as a result,

the Ohio Supreme Court reversed our decision based on their recent holding in .

{¶3} We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court granting class certification and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the holding in .

{¶4} Judgment reversed and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR

Notes