Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Niv Goomai and Bar Hajbi purchased a property in Cincinnati and contracted with H&E Enterprise, L.L.C., Ohad Investment Group, and Avi Ohad for renovations. The renovations were not completed, leading Goomai to sell the property. Goomai then sued the defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking actual damages but not injunctive relief.A jury trial was held before a magistrate, where the jury found that H&E had breached its contract and awarded Goomai $30,604.09 in damages. The jury also found that H&E and Ohad had engaged in deceptive trade practices but awarded $0 in damages for this violation. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Goomai subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which the magistrate denied, reasoning that Goomai did not qualify as a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act since they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Goomai appealed.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one who obtains a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they received a remedy. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Goomai was entitled.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and concluded that to be a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must obtain actual damages or injunctive relief. Since Goomai did not receive any monetary damages or injunctive relief, they were not considered prevailing parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying attorney’s fees. View "Goomai v. H&E Enterprise, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this second lawsuit brought by AJZ's Hauling, LLC against TruNorth Warranty Programs of North American (TruNorth) affirming the decision of the trial court denying TruNorth's motion to stay and compel arbitration, holding that the claims filed by AJZ's Hauling against TruNorth were subject to arbitration.AJZ's Hauling purchased a truck that came with a TruNorth warranty. AJZ's Hauling later sued TruNorth, and the trial court granted TruNorth's motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration. AJZ's then filed a second lawsuit raising the same claims it had alleged against TruNorth in the first lawsuit. TruNorth again filed a motion to stay and to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that application of the doctrine of res judicata would be unreasonable or unjust. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) AJZ's Hauling's claims filed against TruNorth in the second lawsuit were subject to arbitration; and (2) an exception to application of the doctrine of res judicata to avoid unjust results does not apply when the parties had a full opportunity to litigate the issue and chose not to do so. View "AJZ Hauling, LLC v. TruNorth Warranty Program of N. America" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for aggravated murder and his sentence of death, holding that, while error occurred in this case in the form of repetitive crime scene photos, the prosecutor's misstatements, and sentencing opinion errors, none of the errors resulted in prejudicial error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the aggravated murders of his four-year-old daughter, C.D., and her mother, Nicole Duckson, with accompanying death-penalty specifications. The court sentenced Defendant according to the jury's recommendation of a sentence of death for the aggravated murder of C.D. The court then sentenced Defendant to life without parole for the aggravated murder of Nicole. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the case, holding (1) Defendant received a fair trial, and none of the errors in this case, when considered either individually or cumulatively, resulted in prejudicial error; (2) the overwhelming evidence established Defendant's guilt; and (3) the case must be remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entering confirming the September 14, 2019 judgment entry and the September 16, 2019 entry to the sentence that was imposed at the sentencing hearing. View "State v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant's petition seeking a writ of prohibition or mandamus ordering Judge Becky L. Doherty to dismiss third-party claims filed against him, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.Appellant, as an attorney for Dodeka, LLC, filed an action against Cindy Keith to recover approximately $11,000 that Keith allegedly owed. Keith filed an answer and counterclaims against Dodeka and impleaded Appellant as a third-party defendant. The trial court entered summary judgment dismissing Dodeka's claim against Keith and Keith's counterclaims against Dodeka. The trial court then granted summary judgment on the third-party claims Keith had filed against Appellant. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of the counterclaims against Dodeka and the third-party claims against Appellant and remanded. The judge granted summary judgment for Dodeka and denied Appellant's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as to the third-party claims. Appellant appealed the denial of his motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Welt v. Doherty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., did not preempt the State's in-use motor vehicle emission control system tampering claims against Volkswagen, holding that the Clean Air Act did not preempt Ohio law and preclude an anti-tampering claim under Ohio's Air Pollution Control Act, Ohio Rev. Code 3704.01 et seq.After the United States Environmental Protection Agency discovered Volkswagen's scheme to enable its vehicles to perform better than they otherwise would have on federal emissions tests, the State of Ohio sued Volkswagen for its vehicle-emissions tampering, alleging that Volkswagen's conduct violated Ohio's Air Pollution Control Act. The trial court granted Volkswagen's motion to dismiss, concluding that Ohio's anti-tampering statute was preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the federal Clean Air Act neither expressly nor impliedly preempts section 3704.16(C)(3) or precludes an anti-tampering claim under the state Air Pollution Control Act for a manufacturer's post-sale tampering with a vehicle's emissions-control system. View "State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaf" on Justia Law

Consumer, an Ohio resident, defaulted on credit-card debt. Consumer was sued by the entities that purchased her debt in an effort to collect on the debt. Consumer counterclaimed, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA). The trial court entered judgment against Consumer. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the underlying cause of action for default on the credit card in this case accrued in Delaware, the home state of the bank that issued the credit card and where Consumer’s payments were made; (2) Delaware’s statute of limitations determines whether the collection action was timely filed; (3) the filing of a time-barred collection action may form the basis of a violation under the FDCPA and the OSCPA; (4) a consumer can bring actionable claims under the FDCPA and the OSCPA based upon debt collectors’ representations made to courts in legal filings; and (5) debt buyers collecting on credit-card debt and their attorneys are subject to the OSCPA. View "Taylor v. First Resolution Inv. Corp." on Justia Law

Appellees damaged their vehicle when they collided with a deer in the roadway. Appellant insured the vehicle. Appellees had their vehicle repaired using aftermarket replacement parts that were not produced by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Appellant, however, refused to pay for OEM parts after providing an estimate that was based on the use of non-OEM parts. Appellees filed a complaint alleging eight causes of action related to Appellant’s estimate and its refusal to pay for OEM parts. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees on their claim that Appellant violated the Consumer Sales Practices Act by failing to obtain one of Appellees’ signatures on the bottom of the estimate, and Appellees voluntarily dismissed the remainder of their claims. The trial court awarded Appellees actual damages, statutory treble damages, attorney fees, and expenses. The court of appeals modified and affirmed the trial court’s award of damages. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and dismissed the cause, holding that Appellant’s provision of a repair estimate to Appellees was not in connection with a consumer transaction and, therefore, was not an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 1345.02. View "Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from two related class-action lawsuits that were first brought by Appellees almost fifteen years ago. Appellees sought damages from Appellants, Ganley Chevrolet and Ganley Management Company, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA). The trial court eventually certified a class of plaintiffs and ruled that all class members could recover damages. The trial court then ruled that Appellants violated the OCSPA and awarded damages to each class member. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order certifying the class without squarely addressing Appellants’ claim that there was no showing that all class members had suffered damages. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the trial court’s order certifying the class, holding (1) all members of a plaintiff class must have suffered injuries as a result of the conduct challenged in the suit; and (2) because the class certified in this case included plaintiffs whose damages were inchoate, the class as certified was inconsistent with the law. View "Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a registered lender under the Mortgage Loan Act (MLA), and Appellee executed a customer agreement for a single-installment, $500 loan governed by the MLA. Appellee later defaulted on his loan. Appellant filed this action to recover on its loan to Appellee, seeking the unpaid principal balance on the loan along with interest and fees permitted by the MLA. A magistrate judge determined that Appellee’s loan was impermissible under the MLA and that the loan should be governed by the Short-Term Lender Act (STLA). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the MLA does not authorize single-installment, interest-bearing loans and that the STLA prohibits MLA registrants from making single-installment loans of short duration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an “interest-bearing loan,” as defined by the MLA, may include a loan requiring repayment in a single installment; (2) Lenders registered under the MLA may make single-installment, interest-bearing loans, and the STLA does not limit the authority of lenders registered under the MLA to make any loans authorized by the MLA; and (3) Appellant’s loan to Appellee was an interest-bearing loan as defined under the MLA.View "Ohio Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant in the underlying action was a "mortgage servicer" that engaged in the business of serving residential mortgages of individuals. Plaintiff in the underlying proceeding contended that mortgage servicing is a "consumer transaction" as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), Ohio Rev. Code 1345.01. Defendant countered that mortgage servicers perform services for financial institutions, not for borrowers, and therefore the transactions are commercial in nature and are not covered by the CSPA. The Supreme Court accepted certification of state-law questions from the federal district court concerning the proper interpretation of Ohio Rev. Code 1345.01(A) and (C). The Supreme Court held that the CSPA does not apply to the servicing of residential mortgage loans because mortgage servicing is not a consumer transaction under the CSPA, and an entity that services a residential mortgage loan is not a "supplier" that engages "in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions" within the meaning of the CSPA. View "Anderson v. BarclayÂ's Capital Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law