Black v. City of Girard
| Decision Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2019-T-0053 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 1563 |
| Parties | MILES BLACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF GIRARD, OHIO, Defendant, BLUE LINE SOLUTIONS, LLC, 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, Jr., 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, Jr., The Dann Law Firm, 2728 Euclid Avenue, Suite 300, P.O. Box 6031040, Cleveland, OH 44103 (For Plaintiffs-Appellees).
Robert S. Yallech, Reminger Co., LPA, 11 Federal Place Central, Suite 1200, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Defendant-Appellant).
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Blue Line Solutions, LLC, 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 and Blue Line Solutions.
{¶3} On July 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification.
{¶4} 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.
{¶5} On September 17, 2018, Blue Line Solutions filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As the basis for dismissal Blue Line Solutions argued:
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action and damages that flow from the purported "invalid" speeding citations and consequent fines. BLS did not issue any of the citations in this case. The statutes and ordinances cited by plaintiffs make clear that only Girard had that authority. BLS collected none of the fines from the plaintiffs. Those were paid by the plaintiffs to Girard. * * * Plaintiffs cannot prove any set of facts in support of their claim [sic] which would entitle them to relief against BLS.
The plaintiffs responded on October 18, 2018. Blue Line Solutions filed a Reply Brief to the Plaintiffs' Response on October 24, 2018.
{¶6} 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.
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."
{¶7} On December 5, 2018, Blue Line Solutions filed its Answer to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint. On December 17, 2018, Girard filed its Answer.
{¶8} On May 2, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification. On May 31, 2019, Girard and Blue Line Solutions 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 Solutions jointly filed a Surreply in Opposition to the Amended Motion for Class Certification.
{¶9} On July 12, 2019, the trial court issued its ruling on the Amended Motion for Class Certification. The court granted the following "General Class":
{¶10} 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.
{¶11} 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, penaltiesor 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 7, 2019, Blue Line Solutions filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, Blue Line Solutions raises the following assignment of error:
{¶13}
{¶14} At oral argument, Blue Line Solutions raised arguments regarding its liability for citations that it neither issued nor enforced. These same arguments were raised in its September 17, 2018 Motion to Dismiss. As these arguments were addressed in an interlocutory order and were not raised in Blue Line Solutions' appellant's brief, they are not properly before this court and we decline to address them.
{¶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 classpredominate 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 actionmay 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 the ultimate 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} Blue Line Solutions raises three arguments under its sole assignment of error. The first is that the certified class is overly broad because it "includes members who suffered no injury." Its position is that "the members of [the] proposed class who were cited for speeding at 75 m.p.h. or greater (ten miles above the 65 m.p.h. threshold appellees assert is correct) would have received citations regardless, and therefore could not have suffered an...
To continue reading
Request your trial