Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix

555 N.E.2d 956, 52 Ohio St. 3d 67, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 253
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1990
DocketNo. 89-221
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 555 N.E.2d 956 (Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dayton Women's Health Center v. Enix, 555 N.E.2d 956, 52 Ohio St. 3d 67, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 253 (Ohio 1990).

Opinions

Holmes, J.

The sole issue certified for our review is whether the certification of a defendant class action is a final appealable order that must be appealed within the time allotted under App. R. 4(A).2 For the reasons which follow, we decide that such class certifications are final appealable orders which must be appealed within thirty days pursuant to App. R. 4(A).

“Final appealable orders” are defined in R.C. 2505.02, as follows:

“An order affecting a substantial right in an action which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, or an order vacating or setting aside a judgment and ordering a new trial is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed, with or without retrial. * * *” (Later amended March 1987.)

This court addressed the issue of the appealability of class certifications in Amato v. General Motors Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 253, 21 O.O. 3d 158, 423 N.E. 2d 452, syllabus, by holding that “[a]n order of a trial court, pursuant to Civ. R. 23(C)(1), determining that an action may be maintained as a [plaintiff] class action is a final, appealable order, pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.” In deciding that class certifications are in effect special proceedings under R.C. 2505.02, the Amato court announced a balancing test to be applied in these proceedings:

“This test weighs the harm to the ‘prompt and orderly disposition of litigation,’ and the consequent waste of judicial resources, resulting from the allowance of an appeal, with the need for immediate review because appeal after final judgment is not practicable.” Id. at 258, 21 O.O. 3d at 161, 423 N.E. 2d at 456.

Similarly, in Roemisch v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1974), 39 Ohio St. 2d 119, 68 O.O. 2d 80, 314 N.E. 2d 386, syllabus, this court held that an order denying plaintiff class action status was a final appealable order under [70]*70R.C. 2505.02, since “such [an] order clearly affects a ‘substantial right’ of the class which ‘in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment’ adverse or favorable to the class.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 122, 68 O.O. 2d at 81, 314 N.E. 2d at 388. Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 an appeal will lie directly from an order certifying or denying class action status.

Although Amato and Roemisch dealt with the appealability of plaintiff class actions, we find little reason not to apply the holding in those cases to defendant class actions. Clearly, the potential plaintiff or defendant will be equally prejudiced in asserting his or her rights in a defendant or plaintiff class action depending on the certification ruling by the trial court. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Assn. of Cincinnati, Inc. v. Project Jericho (1990), 52 Ohio St. 3d 56, 556 N.E. 2d 157. (Plaintiff requested that defendant class action be certified in order to enjoin the defendant class from engaging in certain conduct.) Usually, defendant class actions are requested in suits seeking injunctive relief under Civ. R. 23(B)(2) when there are several defendants who have been charged with a common responsibility for implementing or enforcing a particular challenged code provision or who have otherwise acted in common under an industry-wide practice or collective bargaining agreement, or have had some other interrelationship to one another that bears directly on the challenged conduct in the litigation. 1 Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions (2 Ed. 1985) 133, Section 3.02. Both plaintiff and defendant class actions arise because of the litigation strategies adopted primarily by the plaintiff’s counsel under the particular circumstances. Furthermore, “[w]hether the action is claimed to be a class action is solely of plaintiff’s choosing, although the defendant may request class treatment in unusual circumstances.” Alpert, Class Action Manual (National Consumer Law Center 1977) 190, quoted in Newberg on Class Actions, supra, at fn. 23.

Appellants assert that although a class determination is a final appealable order, “an immediate appeal from an order certifying a defendant class is permissive, not mandatory.” We disagree. Ohio’s App. R. 4(A) states in pertinent part that: “In a civil case the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days of the date of the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. * * *” (Emphasis added.) Clearly, App. R. 4(A) requires that an appeal be filed within thirty days of a final appealable order.3 Thus, an order of a trial court, pursuant to Civ. R. 23(C), determining that an action shall be maintained as a class action, is a final appealable order, and a party must appeal such an order within thirty days of the date of entry pursuant to App. R. 4(A).

In the case sub judice appellants failed to appeal the January 15, 1987 certification of the defendant class. Instead, they chose to appeal the propriety of the certification on July 10, 1987, when the trial court issued a decision and entry permanently enjoining the defendant class members. Consequently, appellants waived their right to challenge the class certification on appeal.4

[71]*71Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed as to the issue on certification.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur. H. Brown, J., concurs separately. Sweeney, Douglas and Res-nick, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re I.T.A.
2012 Ohio 1689 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
In re H.F.
2008 Ohio 6810 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)
Phillips v. Andy Buick, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-3-2006)
2006 Ohio 5832 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Maas v. Penn Central Corp., Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004)
2004 Ohio 7233 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
Piro v. National City Bank, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2004)
2004 Ohio 356 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
In the Guardianships of Ahmed, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2003)
2003 Ohio 5463 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Hamilton v. Ohio Savings Bank
736 N.E.2d 511 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999)
In Re Cuyahoga County Asbestos Cases
713 N.E.2d 20 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
Deegan & McGarry v. Med-Cor
708 N.E.2d 1029 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
Blumenthal v. Medina Supply Co.
654 N.E.2d 368 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
635 N.E.2d 331 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 N.E.2d 956, 52 Ohio St. 3d 67, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-womens-health-center-v-enix-ohio-1990.