MANDI MATTICE v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES
C.A. CASE NO. 25718
T.C. NO. 12CV8804
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
September 13, 2013
2013-Ohio-3941
(Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 13th day of September, 2013.
MANDI MATTICE, 1526 Joselin Road, Dayton, Ohio 45432
Plaintiff-Appellant
ALAN SCHWEPE, Atty. Reg. No. 0012676, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Health and Human Services Section, 30 East Broad Street, 26th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mandi Mattice appeals, pro se, a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, dismissing her
{¶ 2} In June of 2012, Mattice applied for unemployment benefits with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (hereinafter “ODJFS“). The ODJFS allowed the application with a benefit year beginning November 14, 2010. On June 21, 2012, the ODJFS issued a redetermination which held that Mattice had been discharged from her employment by Jozabe without just cause. Jozabe filed an appeal from the redetermination on June 25, 2012. On June 26, 2012, the ODJFS transferred jurisdiction to the Commission.
{¶ 3} On July 31, 2012, a telephonic hearing was held before an officer from the Commission. Both Mattice and Jozabe were present. Based on evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission issued a decision on August 15, 2012, finding that Mattice had been discharged for just cause which resulted in her being ineligible for unemployment benefits. Mattice filed a timely request for review of the hearing officer‘s decision, and on October 25, 2012, a second hearing was held before the Commission. In a decision issued on November 28, 2012, the Commission affirmed its earlier decision finding Mattice ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Commission‘s decision included a notice advising Mattice of her appeal right and a list of the interested parties to the proceedings. Her former employer, Jozabe, was listed as an interested party.
{¶ 4} On December 18, 2012, Mattice filed her notice of administrative appeal with the trial court. The only interested parties named in the appeal were the ODJFS
{¶ 5} It is from this decision that Mattice now appeals.
{¶ 6} Initially, we note that Mattice has failed to comply with
{¶ 7} “The issue of whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a cause of action is generally a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court‘s decision. * * * .” Yu v. Zhang, 175 Ohio App. 3d 83, 88, 2008-Ohio-400, 885 N.E.2d 278, 282 (2d Dist. 2008). As this Court has noted:
Subject matter jurisdiction of a court “connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits.” In re J.J., 111 Ohio St.3d 205, 2006-Ohio-5484, ¶ 11. “A court‘s subject matter jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of a complaint. Once a court of competent jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction over an action, its authority continues until the matter is completely and finally disposed of, and no court of co-ordinate jurisdiction may interfere with its proceedings.” * * * . Batteiger v.Deutsch, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 021933, 2008-Ohio-1582, ¶ 50.
{¶ 8} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that where a right of appeal is conferred by a statute, the appeal can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by that statute, and that “the exercise of the right conferred is conditional upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements.” Zier v. Bur. of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123, 84 N.E.2d 746 (1949), ¶ 1 of the syllabus.
{¶ 9}
(A) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR APPEAL
Any interested party, within thirty days after written notice of the final decision of the unemployment compensation review commission was sent to all interested parties, may appeal the decision of the commission to the court of common pleas.
(B) WHERE TO FILE THE APPEAL
An appellant shall file the appeal with the court of common pleas of the county where the appellant, if an employee, is a resident or was last employed or, if an employer, is a resident or has a principal place of business in this state. If an appellant is not a resident of or last employed in a county in this state or does not have a principal place of business in this state, then an appellant shall file the appeal with the court of common pleas of Franklin county.
(C) PERFECTING THE APPEAL The timely filing of the notice of appeal shall be the only act required to perfect the appeal and vest jurisdiction in the court. The notice of appeal shall identify the decision appealed from.
(D) INTERESTED PARTIES
The commission shall provide on its final decision the names and addresses of all interested parties. The appellant shall name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal. The director of job and family services is always an interested party and shall be named as an appellee in the notice of appeal.
* * *.
{¶ 10} Recently, the First District Court of Appeals held that a trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a claimant‘s appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission that dismissed his appeal from the denial of his claim by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS), where the notice of appeal failed to name the director of ODJFS as an interested party as required by
{¶ 11} In reaching its conclusion, the First District cited two decisions issued by the Eleventh and the Eighth Districts, respectively, in which the courts held that the failure to name all interested parties in the notice of appeal, including the director of
{¶ 12} In Dikong, the First District noted that
{¶ 13} The First District further noted that:
* * * Dikong received on the final determination from the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission a notice telling him that he must name all interested parties, including the director of Job and Family Services, on the notice of appeal. But he did not name the director of the Department of Job and Family Services in his notice of appeal. Were this court to read
R.C. 4141.282(C) to merely require that the notice of appeal be filed within 30 days to vest the common pleas court with subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, it would renderR.C. 4141.282(D) meaningless. Taken to its logical extreme, a party could write “Notice of Appeal” at the top of a blank page, file it, and the common pleas court would have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Such a filing would in effect negateR.C. 4141.282(D) , and would not comply with Supreme Court case law requiring a party taking an administrative appeal to strictly comply with the requirements in the statute providing for such an appeal.
{¶ 15} As the court found in Dikong, dismissing Mattice‘s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not lead to an unjust or unreasonable result.
{¶ 16} Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not err by dismissing Mattice‘s notice of appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
{¶ 17} Mattice‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} Mattice‘s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FAIN, P.J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mandi Mattice
Alan Schwepe
Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman