Kellie Madyda, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ohio Department of Public Safety, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20AP-217
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 25, 2021
[Cite as Madyda v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2021-Ohio-956.]
(Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-00426JD) (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 25, 2021
On brief: Dann Law, and, Marc E. Dann; and Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., and Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., for plaintiffs-appellees. Argued: Marcel C. Duhamel.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Susan M. Sullivan, and Peggy W. Corn; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, for appellant. Argued: Marc E. Dann.
APPEAL from the Ohio Court of Claims.
BEATTY BLUNT, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Ohio Department of Public Safety (“ODPS“), appeals from a decision of the Ohio Court of Claims certifying the requested class of plaintiffs-appellees, Kellie Madyda, individually, and as legal representative for E.M. (a minor), David Cornelius, Aaron Hoyt, and Caitlin Rader (“appellees“). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification, and therefore affirm the Court of Claims judgment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} This case arises from the procedures for administering driver‘s licenses and state identification (“ID“) cards in the state of Ohio. Prior to July 2, 2018, individuals in
{3} On July 2, 2018, the procedures for administering driver‘s licenses and ID cards changed, and Deputy Registrars ceased creating, printing, and laminating driver‘s licenses and ID cards on-site. Id. at ¶ 13. Instead, a third-party vendor was hired to create and laminate the driver‘s licenses and ID cards and mail them to the respective individuals within ten business days of purchase. Id. Despite the fact that the procedures changed as of July 2, 2018, the legislation authorizing the collection of the Lamination Fee did not change until July 3, 20192 and Deputy Registrars continued to collect the $1.50 Lamination Fee per Ohio Credential issued even though they were no longer performing the services for which the Lamination Fee was meant to compensate them.3 Id. at ¶ 14. The record shows that between July 2, 2018 and July 2, 2019, Deputy Registrars issued 3,423,315 Ohio Credentials for which the Lamination Fee was charged. (Jan. 24, 2020 Tr. at 49; Def.‘s Ex. A at ¶ 8.)
{5} Subsequently, on March 20, 2020, the Court of Claims issued a decision and separate judgment entry finding that appellees satisfied the requirements of
{6} This timely appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error
{7} ODPS assigns the following single assignment of error for our review:
The Court of Claims erred in certifying a class.
III. Standard of Review
{8} A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to certify a class action, and an appellate court should not disturb that determination absent an abuse of discretion. Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 200 (1987), syllabus. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude on the part of the trial court. Id. at 201.
{9} The application of the abuse of discretion standard to a trial court‘s decision to certify a class “is grounded not in credibility assessment, but in the trial court‘s special expertise and familiarity with case-management problems and its inherent power to manage its own docket.” Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67, 70 (1998). “[A]ny doubts about adequate representation, potential conflicts, or class affiliation should be
{10} Nevertheless, the trial court‘s discretion in deciding whether to certify a class action is not without limits and must be exercised within the framework of
IV. Law and Analysis
{11} Before a class may be properly certified as a class action pursuant to
{12} The party seeking to maintain a class action pursuant to
{13} As set forth previously, in this case the trial court granted certification of the requested class after finding that all of the prerequisites of
{14} For a class action to be certified under
{15} Furthermore, it is not sufficient for class certification under
{16} As for the superiority requirement, the determination of whether a class action is the superior method of adjudication requires that the trial court ” ‘make a comparative evaluation of the other procedures available to determine whether a class action is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of judicial time and energy involved therein.’ ” State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement. Bd., 111 Ohio St.3d 118, 2006-Ohio-5339, ¶ 28, quoting Schmidt v. Avco Corp., 15 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1984).
{17}
{18} In considering the factors relevant to the court‘s inquiry on both the predominance and superiority requirements, it is important that the trial court keep in mind the essential purpose of class certification under
{19} In the instant matter, in finding that the predominance requirement of
[t]he common question of law affecting every class member is whether [ODPS] was authorized to collect the $1.50 lamination fee. The validity of the $1.50 lamination fee is the common legal question to each class member. Thus, the Court finds that this common question of law predominates over any questions affecting only individual members.
(Decision at 8.)
{20} ODPS contends that the trial court‘s findings with regard to predominance under
{21} In support of its argument that the foregoing question of “who actually paid the Lamination Fee” defeats the predominance requirement of
{22} In contrast, in the instant case it is uncontested that each individual who was issued an Ohio Credential was in fact directly charged the $1.50 Lamination Fee. Put another way, in order to receive an Ohio Credential, the Lamination Fee was required to be paid. As the Court of Claims aptly stated, “[a]ll of the individuals who were issued a credential between July 2, 2018 and July 2, 2019 were required to pay the lamination fee to receive their credential, and simply put, were potentially overcharged $1.50.” (Decision at 4.) Thus, unlike the putative class members in Felix, in this case, all class members were in fact injured by the actions of ODPS. The ultimate source of the $1.50 Lamination Fee on the part of each individual is simply not the determinative factor as to whether all class members were injured in fact, and none of the cases cited by ODPS hold otherwise. Accordingly, the Court of Claims finding that the predominance requirement was satisfied is not an abuse of discretion.
{23} ODPS next contends that the trial court abused its discretion, and therefore erred, in certifying the class as defined by the trial court by not considering and/or addressing notice to the class as provided for under
{24} Furthermore, ODPS is conflating the concept of consideration of notice to the class as part of the broader consideration of whether a class action is manageable, and therefore a superior method to other available methods of adjudication under
{25} Moreover, the Court of Claim‘s decision certifying the class readily shows that the Court of Claims considered the issue of notice to the class members. On page 9 of the decision, the Court of Claims is clearly discussing the reasons it finds the class action method a superior means to adjudicate this controversy, and specifically states, “[a]lso, since Hamilton4 verified that [ODPS] maintains records identifying the class members, the Court does not find that this class presents any manageability concerns.” (Decision at 9.) Additionally, in discussing the “identifiable class” requirement of
{26} Finally, we note that the parties present considerable arguments discussing whether the notice plan suggested by appellees in the court below comports with both the requirements of
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, P.J., and LUPER SCHUSTER, J., concur.