{¶ 2} This case arises from ODE's determination that appellant, which is an Ohio "community school" established and operated pursuant to R.C. Chapter
{¶ 3} On August 21, 2007, appellant filed a complaint against appellees as a result of ODE's determinations regarding its academic progress. In its complaint, appellant sought declaratory judgment that ODE's procedure for appealing an AYP determination violates the NCLBA, that the process is invalid because the standards and *3
regulations associated with the process were not promulgated in compliance with R.C. Chapter
{¶ 4} On October 3, 2007, appellees filed a motion to dismiss appellant's claims. Specifically, appellees moved to dismiss appellant's R.C.
{¶ 5} Appellant appeals and sets forth the following single assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted Defendants'/Appellees' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
{¶ 6} In this appeal, appellant challenges the trial court's dismissal, pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6), of its claim for a declaratory judgment that ODE's appeal procedures concerning AYP determinations are invalid on the basis that ODE failed to comply with the rulemaking requirements of R.C. Chapter
{¶ 7} Appellate review of a trial court's decision to dismiss a case pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6) is de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v.Rossford,
{¶ 8} A declaratory judgment action is a civil action and provides a remedy in addition to other legal and equitable remedies available.Aust v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (2000),
*5[A]ny person * * * whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a constitutional provision, statute, rule as defined in section
119.01 of the Revised Code, * * * may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the * * * constitutional provision, statute, [or] rule * * * and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations under it.
{¶ 9} R.C.
{¶ 10} Appellees argue that R.C.
{¶ 11} In the W.C. Cupe Community School case, W.C. Cupe Community School (the "plaintiff school") filed a complaint requesting, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that ODE's process for the appeal of an AYP determination was void and unenforceable because it was not adopted through the R.C. Chapter
{¶ 12} On appeal, this court directly addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff school's claim could be the proper subject of a declaratory judgment action. Id. at ¶ 15. This court recognized that, inWise, it was concluded that "declaratory judgment is not an *6
appropriate remedy to preclude utilization of a rule not properly adopted in accordance with statutory procedure," and thatColeman followed the reasoning of Wise. See W.C. Cupe CommunitySchool, at ¶ 16-17. However, this court distinguished Wise andColeman with the matter that was currently before the court, finding that neither of those cases addressed the principle that "an agency's determination that some measure being implemented by the agency is not a rule requiring promulgation through the rule making process is not determinative of whether that measure is, or is not, a rule[.] * * * Rather, `[t]he pivotal issue in determining the effect of a [measure] is whether it enlarges the scope of the rule or statute from which it derives rather than simply interprets it.'" W.C. Cupe CommunitySchool, at ¶ 18, citing Ohio Nurses Assn., Inc. v. State Bd. of NursingEdn. Nurse Registration (1989),
{¶ 13} In the case at bar, appellant, like W.C. Cupe CommunitySchool, seeks a declaratory judgment that ODE's appeal process for challenging an AYP determination is void and unenforceable because ODE did not comply with the procedural requirements of *7
R.C. Chapter
{¶ 14} ODE also argues that the procedure for appealing AYP determinations is not a "rule" subject to the rulemaking requirements of R.C. Chapter
{¶ 15} In its complaint, appellant alleged that it submitted to ODE the last of its data relevant to determining AYP on July 27, 2007, and that on the same date it learned that ODE already had determined that appellant had failed to meet AYP and had identified appellant for "school improvement status 1," despite the fact that ODE established this date as the deadline for the submission of data relevant to an AYP determination. Appellant additionally alleged in its complaint that it attempted to appeal, on July 27, 2007, the school status determination, and that the appeal was denied on the stated basis that "[incomplete or inaccurate data submissions on the part of an LEA are not an acceptable reason for appealing an AYP determination." (Complaint, at paragraph 16.) In connection with these allegations, appellant attached, as exhibits to its complaint, a copy of the "2006-2007 AYP/SI/DI Appeal Form," which requires the school or district to set forth the reason(s) for the appeal, the corresponding "2006-2007 AYP/SI/DI Appeal Form Instructions," and the memorandum to appellant from the ODE "AYP/SI/DI Appeals Team" denying the appeal. *8
{¶ 16} Upon reviewing the complaint, as well as the exhibits incorporated into the complaint, we find that appellant has sufficiently alleged the existence of a rule for which a declaratory judgment may be appropriate.1 Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing, pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6), appellant's claim for a declaratory judgment that ODE's procedure for appealing an AYP determination was invalid due to ODE's alleged failure to follow the rulemaking requirements of R.C. Chapter
{¶ 17} Having sustained appellant's single assignment of error, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and remand this matter for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
BROWN and SADLER, JJ., concur.