Black v. City of Girard
| Decision Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2019-T-0050 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 1562 |
| Parties | MILES BLACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF GIRARD, OHIO, et al., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CV 01256.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220, Chicago, IL 60602, and Marc E. Dann, Brian Daniel Flick, and Michael Andrew Smith, The Dann Law Firm, 2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300, P.O. Box 6031040, Cleveland, OH 44103 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).
James M. Popson and Robert E. Cahill, Sutter O'Connell Co., 1301 East Ninth Street, 3600 Erieview Tower, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, the City of Girard, appeals the July 12, 2019 Judgment Entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, granting plaintiffs-appellees' Amended Motion for Class Certification. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
{¶2} On July 16, 2018, plaintiffs, Miles Black, Melissa Black aka Melissa Hyde, Lorraine Morris, John Perfette, Samuel Rotz, and John Beal, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Ohio Constitution, Declaratory Judgment, Equitable Restitution, Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act, and Negligent Misrepresentation against defendants, the city of Girard, Ohio, and Blue Line Solutions, LLC.
{¶3} The Complaint identified Girard as an Ohio municipality authorized to ticket persons who exceed the speed limits along Interstate 80 within its boundaries. Blue Line operates an automatic traffic enforcement system on behalf of Girard.
{¶4} On July 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.
{¶5} On August 15, 2018, Girard filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs responded on August 30, 2018. Girard filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss on September 10, 2018.
{¶6} On September 17, 2018, Blue Line filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs responded on October 18, 2018. Blue Line filed a Reply Brief to the Plaintiffs' Response on October 24, 2018.
{¶7} On November 21, 2018, the trial court ruled on the Motions to Dismiss. The court noted:
According to the complaint, each Plaintiff was issued a citation for speeding in the City of Girard between the time frame of December 7, 2017 to January 7, 2018. During this time frame, the posted speed limit on the subject area of Interstate 80 was 55 mph. According to the Plaintiffs, the speed limit in the subject area should have been 65 mph since the Ohio Department of Transportation had completed construction in the subject area on December 7, 2017. The citations were issued by the City of Girard, however,Blue Line operates the traffic enforcement system according to the complaint.
{¶8} The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and negligent misrepresentation. The court ruled that "the motions are denied as to the remaining claims for due process violations, declaratory judgment, equitable restitution, and civil conspiracy."
{¶9} On December 5, 2018, Blue Line filed its Answer to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2018, Girard filed its Answer.
{¶10} On May 2, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification. On May 31, 2019, Girard and Blue Line filed individual Briefs in Opposition to the Amended Motion for Class Certification. The plaintiffs filed a Reply on June 14, 2019. With leave of court, Girard and Blue Line jointly filed a Surreply in Opposition to the Amended Motion for Class Certification.
{¶11} On July 12, 2019, the trial court issued its ruling on the Amended Motion for Class Certification. The court granted the following "General Class":
All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard.
The court defined a "Subclass 1 of this general class definition" as follows:
All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard, and who paid any fines, penalties or fees related to the citation.
The court defined a "Subclass 2 of the general class definition" as follows:
All persons and entities who were issued a citation for allegedly traveling in excess of 55 m.p.h. in violation of Girard City Ordinance 333.03 and/or Traffic Code Ordinance 8069-16, between December 7, 2017 and January 7, 2018, in the westbound lane of Interstate 80 within the municipal limits of the City of Girard, and who have not paid any fines, penalties or fees related to the citation, and whose citation was not found not liable at a hearing.
{¶12} On August 9, 2019, Girard filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Girard raises the following assignments of error:
{¶13}
{¶14}
{¶15} An action may be maintained as a class action "if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Civ.R. 23(A).
{¶16} In addition to these prerequisites, "[a] class action may be maintained if * * * the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Civ.R. 23(B)(3); In re Consol. Mtge. Satisfaction Cases, 97 Ohio St.3d 465, 2002-Ohio-6720, 780 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 7.
{¶17} Finally, there are "[t]wo prerequisites * * * implicitly required by Civ.R. 23": the class must be identifiable and unambiguous, and the class representatives must be members of the class. Warner v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 91, 521 N.E.2d 1091 (1988), paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, 96; Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67, 71, 694 N.E.2d 442 (1998).1
{¶18} "A trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis when determining whether to certify a class pursuant to Civ.R. 23 and may grant certification only after finding that all of the requirements of the rule are satisfied; the analysis requires the court to resolve factual disputes relative to each requirement and to find, based upon those determinations, other relevant facts, and the applicable legal standard, that the requirement is met." Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, 999 N.E.2d 614, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶19} "A party seeking certification pursuant to Civ.R. 23 bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed class meets each of the requirements set forth in the rule." Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶20} "A trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether a class action may be maintained and that determination will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200, 509 N.E.2d 1249 (1987), syllabus; Vinci v. American Can Co., 9 Ohio St.3d 98, 459 N.E.2d 507 (1984), paragraph one of the syllabus. The abuse of discretion standard "applies to theultimate decision of the trial court, * * * as well as to its determination regarding each requirement of the rule." Cullen at ¶ 19. Nevertheless, as in civil cases generally where "the burden of persuasion is only by a preponderance of the evidence, * * * evidence must still exist on each element (sufficiency) and the evidence on each element must satisfy the burden of persuasion (weight)." Id. at ¶ 20, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, 972 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 19.
{¶21} With respect to the mandate for the trial court to "conduct a rigorous analysis" as to whether class certification is appropriate, this court has held: "Where the trial court's written decision granting class certification provides an articulated rationale sufficient to support an appellate inquiry into whether the relevant factors were properly applied, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in conducting its rigorous analysis." Unifund CCR Partners v. Piaser, 2019-Ohio-183, 131 N.E.3d 233 (11th Dist.), ¶17, citing Baughman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 480, 483, 727 N.E.2d 1265 (2000).
{¶22} The arguments in Girard's assignments of error overlap to a certain extent. In the first assignment, Girard broadly argues that the trial court failed to conduct a "rigorous analysis" as to whether class certification is appropriate. Arguments that the court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis with respect to particular findings are made under both assignments but will be considered by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial