[Cite as Aaron v. Supreme Court of Ohio , 2024

- Ohio

- 570.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} Pursu ant to Civ.R. 56 (C)

, Defend ant moves for a summary judgment in its

favor

. Defendant ’ s mo tion for summary judgment has been fully briefed and it is ripe for

decision. The Court grants Defendant ’ s summary

- judgment motion for reasons that

follow

.

I. Background {¶2} In Frieda Aaron

, et a l. v. The Supreme Court of Ohio

, Ct . of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632J D, p laintiff Frieda Aaron and hundreds o f other p laintiffs filed a Complaint against

d efendant The Supreme Court of Ohio “ for intentional negligence * * * in not resolving through trial 580 claims against fleeing felon, Dr. Atiq Durrani, under [Sup.R. 42(C)]. ” Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), d efendant moved to dismiss p laintiffs ’ c omplaint for failure to

state a claim

. The Court found that defendant had established that plaintiff s failed to stat e a claim upon which relief can be granted because p laintiffs ’ c lai ms were premised on

“ intentional negligence ” and a violation of Sup.R. 42(C), which could not be understood as granting plaintiffs a right to judicial relief. Th e Court granted d efend ant ’ s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) mo tio n and dismissed p laintiffs ’ action on Novem ber 14 , 2023. {¶3} On November 27, 2023 , in the case that is now before the Court

, Plaintiffs (who are the same plaintiffs as in Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD) brought an action against

Defendant (who is the same defendant as i n Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD) , a sse rting a FRIEDA AARON, et al

.

Plaintiffs

v.

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Defendant Case No. 2023

- 00728JD

Judge Lisa L. Sadler

DECISIONCase No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 2

- DECISION

claim “ for negligence by the Ohio Supreme Court in not resolving through trial 580 claims against fleeing felon, Dr. Atiq Durrani, under [Sup.R. 42 (C) ]

. {¶4} Without answer ing Plaintiffs ’ Complaint, D efendant moved for summary judgment on December 20 , 2023, on ground s that Plaintiffs ’ claims are barred by the

doctrine of res judicat a

. Defendant ’ s motion is supported by accompanying exhib its.

Defendant maintains

, “ Because this Court has already ruled that the allegati ons set forth

in the compl aint fo r c ase number 2023

- 00632JD fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and they are identical to those set forth in this matter, Plaintiffs ’ complaint

f ails as a matter of law. ” {¶5} In opposition

, Plaintiffs contend that the doctrine of res judicata does not a pply

because in Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD the issue of “ int entional negligence ” was considered by the Court

— not the issue of negligence , as r aised in the case now before

the Cour t

. Since the issu e of negligen ce was never litigated

, Plaintiff s co ntend that the doctrine of res judicata cannot bar Plaintiffs ’ claims of negligence.

In reply, Defendant generally maintains that , as a matter of law, Plaintiffs are barred by the do ctrine of re s judicata from p ursuing their new Complaint becau se the identical

Plaintiff s from Ct. of C l No. 2023

- 00632JD have filed the new Complaint premised on a violation of Sup.R. 42(C) , wh ich this Court already has ruled does not provide a private right of act ion.

II. L aw and Analysis

A. L e ga l standard for summary judgment. {¶6} A su mmar y j u dg m en t t e rm i n a te s l iti g at ion t o a v o i d a for ma l t r ia l i n a c as e

w h ere ther e i s no t hing to t ry

. N o r r i s v. Oh io Std

. Oil C o

. , 70 Ohio St

. 2d 1, 2, 433 N. E. 2d

615 (1 9 8 2 )

. T he Ohio S upre m e C ourt ha s instructed : “ Trial co ur t s should awa r d s umm ary judg ment wi th cautio n , being car e ful to resol ve d oub t s and const rue evide nce in favor of

the nonm oving p a rty

. ” W elco Ind us tries, Inc. v

. A pplied C os

. , 67 O hio St .3d 344, 3 46,

6 17 N .E.2 d 1129 ( 199 3 )

, ci ti n g Murphy v. Reynolds burg

, 65 Ohio St

. 3d 3 56

, 60 4 N. E

. 2d

1 38 ( 1 992). A s u m mary judg m ent , ho wever , “ i s a p p ropriate w here a pl aintiff fails to produce eviden c e su p por ting th e e ssentia ls o f it s claim. ” W e lco Indu st

ries , Inc. at 3 4 6,Case No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 3

- DECISION

citi n g Wing v. A n ch or M edi a, Lt d. of Texas , 59 O h io St.3d 108, 5 70 N.E. 2d 1 09 5 ( 1991)

, paragrap h t hree of t h e syllabu s. {¶7} C i v. R

. 5 6 ( C) “pr ov i de s th a t bef o re summa r y judg ment may be g ra n t e d, it must

be d et erm in e d t ha t (1) no ge n u i ne i ssue a s to any m at e r i al f a c t r em ains to b e lit i g a t e d, (2 ) t he m ovi n g p ar t y i s ent i tled t o jud gme n t a s a ma tt er of law, a n d ( 3 ) i t ap p e a rs from th e

ev i d e n c e t h at re a so n a bl e m ind s ca n com e t o bu t one conclu s io n , and viewin g s uc h

evi de n c e mo st stron g ly i n fav or o f th e nonmov i n g p a rt y , th a t conc lusi o n i s a d ve r se to t h e

p a rty a g ain s t w h om t h e moti o n fo r s u mma ry j udgm ent is made. ” S t a te ex r e l

. Grady v.
S ta t e E m p

. R els

. B d

. , 78 Oh io S t.3 d 181

, 1 83, 677 N .E.2d 3 4 3 ( 1 9 97)

. {¶8} U nde r C iv .R . 5 6 a p a rt y who mo v es f o r su mmar y ju dg ment “ be a r s th e i ni t ia l

re spon s i b ili t y o f i nfo rm i ng t he t r i a l c o ur t of t he b as i s fo r t h e m o t i on, a nd identifyi n g t h o se

por t i o ns of t h e r e co r d b e f or e th e t ri a l c o ur t w h ich demo n s t rate the absence of a gen uine

is s ue o f fac t o n a m at erial e le me n t of the n on mo ving p a r t y ’ s c l a i m. ” D resh er v

. Bu rt
, 75
Oh io St

. 3d 2 80, 2 9 2, 66 2 N .E.2 d 264 ( 1 9 96)

. A pa rt y who mov es for su m m a r y ju d gme n t

“m ust b e a b l e t o p o i nt to ev i de n t ia r y mat e ria ls of t h e ty pe li sted in Ci v

. R . 5 6( C) th a t a co urt

i s t o c onsider i n re n deri ng s um ma ry jud gm en t

. ” D r e s he r a t 29 2

- 29 3

. Se e C i v .R . 5 6( C ). 1

If a mo v i n g p arty “ fai ls t o s ati s fy i t s in itial burden

, t h e m o ti o n f o r summary ju d g me n t m u st

be den i ed

. ” V

ah ila v. Hall

, 7 7 Ohi o St. 3d 421, 42 9, 674 N.E.2d 11 64 ( 199 7). S ee O mega
Ri gge rs & E

r ector s , Inc. v. Kov

e r man , 201 6

- Ohio

- 296 1

, 6 5 N. E.3 d 210 , ¶ 69 (2d Dist. ) ( “ u nle ss the movant sa tisfi es i t s ini tial bur d e n on a moti o n for summar y ju dgme n t, the

non

- movant h as no burden o f proof ”)

. But i f a p a r ty w h o mov es fo r su mmar y jud gm ent

h a s sat isfi ed i ts initial b u r de n , th e n a nonm ov in g p a rt y “h a s a r eci pr o c al bu rde n ou tl in ed

in the l a s t s ent ence o f Ci v

. R

. 5 6 ( E ) .” D r e sher at 2 9 3. See Ci v. R. 5 6( E) (“ [ w ]he n a moti on
f o r summary j u dgme n t i s m ad e a nd s u p p o r te d a s pro vi d ed i n this r ule

, an ad v er se part y

ma y not rest u p o n t h e m e r e a lleg at io ns o r d eni al s o f th e p a rt y ’s pl ea ding s, but the p a r t y ’ s

1 Pur s ua n t to C iv

. R

. 5 6( C), summ a r y j u dgment “s h all b e re n der e d for t h w i th i f the p leadi ngs, d e p o s i tions

, a ns we r s t o i nterroga tor ie s, w r it t e n a dmi ss i o ns, a ffi d avits

, tr a ns c r i p t s o f evi d e nc e, a nd wr i t ten st i pul ati ons of f a c t, if a ny, t im e l y f i l e d in the a ct ion , s h ow t hat t he r e i s n o genuin e is s u e as t o a n y mat e ria l fa c t and t h a t t h e movi n g par ty i s e n t i t l ed t o j ud gm e nt a s a matter of l aw. No e v i d enc e o r stipul a t ion m ay b e
c o ns i d ere d exc e p t as s ta t ed i n this rul e.” A ny e v id ence t hat i s no t s p ec i fica l ly l i s t e d in Ci v. R . 56( C ) “ i s o nly prop er if i t is in co r porat e d i n to a n app r o p ria t e a ffi d avit u nde r C iv

. R

. 56( E). ” P ol l ar d v

. Elber , 20 18

- Ohio

4 53 8, 1 23 N. E. 3d 35 9, ¶ 22 ( 6 t h Di s t .) How ev er, c ou rts “ m ay c onsider oth er evi den c e i f the r e i s no o b j e c ti o n
on thi s b a sis

. ” S ta t e ex r e l

. Gi l mour Rea lt

y, I n c. v. C it

y of M a yfi e ld H ts.
, 1 2 2 Oh i o S t.3 d 260, 200 9

- O hi o

2 8 71, 91 0 N .E

. 2d 4 55 , ¶ 17 ; Po lla rd a t ¶ 22

.Case No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 4

- DECISION

re sponse, by a f f i da v i t o r a s othe r wi se pr ov ided i n th is r ul e, m u st set fort h sp e cific fact s
show i ng tha t the re i s a g en ui n e iss ue fo r tr ial. I f t he pa rt y d oes not so re spond, s um m a ry j u dg m e nt, if ap pr op r i at e , s h a l l b e e nt e r ed ag ai n st t he p arty”).

B. D octrine of res ju dic ata bars Plaintiffs ’ claims in this c ase

. {¶9} Res judi cata is an affirmative defense. Civ.R. 8(C)

. The Eighth Dist rict Court of Appeals has determined that r es judicata may be ra ised in a motion for summary judgment before an answer is filed. Coleman v. Cleveland School Dist. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga N o . 80239, 2002

- Ohio

- 2262, ¶ 16 ; Hedrick v. Spitzer Motor City, Inc. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 89306, 2007

- Ohio

- 6820, ¶ 12 , following Coleman

, su pra

. But see Civ.R. 56(A) ( “ [a] p arty may move for summary judgmen t at a ny time after the expiration of the time p ermitted under these rules for a respons ive motion or pleading by the adverse party,

or after service of a motio n for summary judgment by the adverse party ” )

. {¶10} In Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD this Court recognized that a claim pre mised

on “ intentional negl igence ” and a violation of Sup.R. 42 (C) could not be understood as

g ranting a right to j udicial relief

. See Reserve Trucking Co. v. Fairchild , 128 Ohio St. 519,
534, 191 N.E. 7 45 (1934) (“‘ i ntentional negligen ce’ is a phrase that contradicts itself.”).
Q uoting the Ninth District Court of Appeals

, this Court stated : “ ‘ Ohio appellate courts have

indicated that the Rules of S uperin tendence are general guidelines fo r the conduct of the

court s and do not create substantive rights in individ uals or p rocedural law. ” ’ In re K. G.

, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 10CA0016, 2010

- Ohio

- 4399, ¶ 11

. ” (Decision, Ct . of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632 (Nov . 14, 2023. ) ) See Buckmaster v. Buckmaster , 4th Dist. Highla nd No. 13CA13,

2014

- Ohio

- 793, ¶ 9 , citi ng State v. Singer , 50 Ohio St.2 d 103, 110, 362 N.E.2d 1216 (1977) ( “ [c]ourts have interpreted the Rules of Superintendence as gener al g uidelines fo r

t he con duct of th e courts that do not create substa ntive rights ” ) ; State v. Getty s , 49 Ohio

A pp.2d 241, 243, 360 N.E.2d 735 (3d Dist.1976 ) (stat ing that “ whereas rules of procedure adop ted b y the Supreme Court require submission to th e legislature, rules of superintendence are no t so submitted and, hence, are of a differe nt category. They are not the eq uivalen t of rules of procedure and have no force equivalent to a statute. They are purely internal housekeeping rules which are of concern to t he judges of th e seve ral

courts but create no rights in individ ual defendants ” )

.Case No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 5

- DECISION

{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court has adopted the modern application of the doctrine of res judicata, which includes claim preclusion and issue preclusion. AJZ ’ s Hauling, L.L.C. v. Trunorth Warranty Programs of N. Am.

, Slip Op. No. 2023

- Ohio

- 3097, ¶ 16

. In

AJZ ’ s Hauling, L.L.C.

, at ¶ 16, the Ohi o Supreme Court explained :

“ Claim preclusion makes ‘ “ an existing final judgment or decree between the parti es to litigation * * * conclusive as to all claims which were or might h ave been litigated in a first lawsuit. ” ’ ” Lycan v. City of

Cleveland

, Ohio St.3d , 2022

- Ohio

- 4676, N.E.3d , ¶ 22, quoting
Natl. Amusements, Inc. at 62, quoting Rogers v. Whiteh all , 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 69, 25 Ohio B. 89, 494 N.E.2d 1387 (1986). For claim preclusion to apply, the followi ng four elements must be satisfie d:

“ (1) [A] prior final, va li d decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second acti on involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a sec ond action raising cla ims that were or could ha ve been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous

action. ” Lycan at ¶ 23, quoting Hapgood v. Warren , 127 F.3d. 490, 493 (6th Cir.1997). Issue preclu sion , also known as collateral es toppel, pr events parties fr o m relitigating facts and issues in a subsequent suit that were fully litigated i n a prior suit. * * * {¶12} Under Ohio law a dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B )(6) is an adjudication on

the merits unless a trial court indicates otherwise. Byg v. Lynch , 5th Dist. Fairfield Nos.
03CA45, 03CA48, 2003

- Ohio

- 7290, ¶ 14 , citing State ex rel. O'Donnell v . Vogelgesang

, 91 O hio App.3d 585, 632 N.E.2d 1367 (12th Dist.1993)

. In Ct . of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD

the Cour t dismissed the acti on without sp ecifying wh ethe r its dismissal was with , or
without

. p rejudice

, with the result that the Court ’ s dismissal in Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD operated as an adjudication on the merits

. See Byg at ¶ 14. {¶13} A review of Plaintiffs ’ Compl aint in this case shows that this case involves the same parties as in Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD, that this case raises claims that wereCase No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 6

- DECISION

or could have been litigated in Ct. of Cl. No. 2023

- 00632JD, and that this case arises out
of the transac tion or occurrence that was the subject of Ct. of C l. No. 2023

- 00632JD.

Claim preclusio n therefore applies , as a matter of law

. See AJZ ’ s Hauling, L.L.C. v. Trunorth Warranty Programs of N. Am. at ¶ 16 (identifying four eleme nts for clai m preclusion to apply). {¶14} When the evidence is viewed most stron gly in favor of Plaintiffs , reasonable

mind s can come to but one c onclus ion , namely, that no genuine issue as to any material

fact remain s to be litigated and that Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor as a

ma tter of law based on the doctrine of res jud icata

.

III. Co nclusion {¶15} For reasons set forth above, the Court grants Defendant ’ s motion for summary judgment . Defendant is entitled to a summary judgment in its favor

.

LISA L. SADLER JudgeCase No. 2023

- 00728JD

- 7

- DECISION

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶16} For re asons set forth in the Decisi on f iled concurrently herewith, the Court

GRANTS Defendant ’ s Motion For Summary Judgment filed on December 20, 2023. Judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant. Court costs are assessed equally against

Plaintiffs. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of
entry u p on the journal.

LISA L. SADLER Judge

Filed January 26 , 202 4 Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/ 15 /24 FRIEDA AARON, et al

.

Plaintiffs

v.

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Defendant Case No. 2023

- 00728JD

Judge Lisa L. Sadler

JUDGMENT ENTRY