[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Lycan v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4676.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-4676

LYCAN ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Lycan v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4676.]

Administrative law—Appellate review—Res judicata—Automated traffic 

cameras—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and caused remanded to the 

trial court.

(No. 2020-0341—Submitted September 7, 2021—Decided December 29, 2022.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County,

Nos. 107700 and 107737, 2019-Ohio-3510.

__________________

KENNEDY, J., announcing the judgment of the court.1

{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Eighth District 

Court of Appeals, we determine whether the payment of a civil fine for a traffic 

1. The duty to write this opinion was assigned to the author on December 13, 2022.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

violation under a city’s automated-traffic-enforcement program without disputing 

liability for the violation precludes those improperly ticketed under the program 

from raising a claim of unjust enrichment against the city in a separate action. 

Appellees are Janine Lycan, Thomas Pavlish, Jeanne Task, Lindsey Charna, Ken 

Fogle, John T. Murphy, and other members of a class seeking reimbursement for

the fines collected by appellant, the city of Cleveland, for traffic violations by 

vehicle lessees that were recorded by the city’s traffic-enforcement cameras. 

Appellees were issued citations and paid fines under the program, under which only 

owners of vehicles were liable for violations of the city’s traffic ordinances. Just 

before the complaint in this case was filed, the Eighth District held in another case 

that the city’s automated-traffic-enforcement ordinance did not apply to vehicle 

lessees. See Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 

2009-Ohio-738, 908 N.E.2d 964, ¶ 39, 50, 55 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 2} We determine that because appellees paid their fines without 

disputing the applicability of the city’s automated-traffic-enforcement ordinance to 

vehicle lessees, appellees were barred by res judicata from raising their subsequent 

unjust-enrichment claim against the city. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of 

the court of appeals.

I. Relevant Background

A. The city’s automated-traffic-enforcement program

{¶ 3} Cleveland Codified Ordinances (“CCO”) 413.031 authorized the 

city’s use of traffic-enforcement cameras. CCO 413.031(b) and (c) imposed

liability on the “owner of a vehicle” caught on camera committing a red-light or 

speeding offense. The ordinance formerly defined “vehicle owner” as “the person 

or entity identified by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or registered with any 

other State vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle.” Former 

CCO 413.031(p)(3). At the times relevant in this case, however, the city included 
Supreme Court of Ohio

3

vehicle lessees in its administrative definition of “owners” and sent vehicle lessees 

tickets for camera-detected violations.

{¶ 4} Under the city’s automated-traffic-enforcement adjudication system, 

any ticket generated by an automated traffic camera (1) was reviewed by a 

Cleveland police officer, (2) was sent by first-class mail to or was personally served 

at the address of the registered owner of the vehicle, and (3) specified the manner 

in which the ticket could be appealed. CCO 413.031(h). The ordinance imposed a 

$100 fine for red-light violations, a $100 fine for speeding violations of up to 24 

miles per hour over the speed limit, a $200 fine for speeding violations of 25 miles 

per hour or more over the speed limit, and a $200 fine for any speed violation 

committed in a school zone or construction zone. CCO 413.031(o). There were no 

criminal penalties for traffic violations detected by the cameras under the program.

CCO 413.031(i).

{¶ 5} As for appeals under the program, the vehicle owner had to file a 

notice of appeal with the hearing officer within 21 days of the date listed on the 

ticket. CCO 413.031(k). The ordinance provided: “The failure to give notice of 

appeal or pay the civil penalty within this time period shall constitute a waiver of 

the right to contest the ticket and shall be considered an admission.” Id. The 

ordinance set forth the procedure for appealing a ticket, stating: “Appeals shall be 

heard by the Parking Violations Bureau through an administrative process 

established by the Clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court. * * * The contents of 

the ticket shall constitute a prima facie evidence of the facts it contains. Liability 

may be found by the hearing examiner based upon a preponderance of the 

evidence.” Id. After a person had gone through the city’s administrative process, 

the person could appeal the hearing officer’s decision to the common pleas court 

pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

{¶ 6} One entity similarly situated to appellees followed that procedure to 

its endpoint. In Dickson & Campbell, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

N.E.2d 964, a law firm received two speeding tickets under the city’s automatedtraffic-enforcement program and then participated in the administrative-hearingand-appeal process through its completion in the Eighth District. The firm disputed 

the hearing officer’s conclusion that CCO 413.031 applied to vehicle lessees. 

Dickson & Campbell at ¶ 1-5, 54-55. The Eighth District held that based on the 

plain meaning of the phrase “vehicle owner,” id. at ¶ 39, CCO 413.031 did not 

impose liability on vehicle lessees, id. at ¶ 51. After the court of appeals’ decision 

in Dickson & Campbell, the city amended CCO 413.031 to state that “vehicle 

owner” includes the “lessee” of a leased or rented vehicle, CCO 413.031(p)(4).

B. The class action

{¶ 7} The underlying case is a class action that followed the decision 

in Dickson & Campbell. Plaintiffs in the class action and appellees here—who 

were vehicle lessees who received tickets under the city’s automated-trafficenforcement program—did not appeal their cases to the parking-violations bureau; 

most paid the $100 civil fine upon receiving the ticket.

{¶ 8} For example, in 2006, Lycan, the first named plaintiff in the classaction suit, received from the city a notice of liability stating that an automatedtraffic-enforcement camera had photographed her vehicle violating the city’s 

speeding ordinance. She paid the fine, admitting liability under the citation. In 

2009, on behalf of herself and other vehicle lessees who had been ticketed under 

the program, Lycan filed a motion for class certification. As relief, appellees sought 

the following: (1) disgorgement of the fines paid to the city, under an unjustenrichment theory, (2) an injunction preventing the city from enforcing the 

ordinance against vehicle lessees, and (3) declaratory judgment that the city 

wrongfully possessed appellees’ money.

C. A brief history of the litigation and the city’s defenses

{¶ 9} The amended complaint in this case was filed in 2009. This court has 

issued one prior decision in the case, Lycan v. Cleveland, 146 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-
Supreme Court of Ohio

5

Ohio-422, 51 N.E.3d 593 (“Lycan III”). In that decision, this court set forth the 

procedural history of the case to that point, which included two prior decisions by 

the Eighth District: Lycan v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94353, 2010-Ohio6021 (“Lycan I”), overruled in part by Lycan III; and Lycan v. Cleveland, 2014-

Ohio-203, 6 N.E.3d 91 (8th Dist.) (“Lycan II”), rev’d in part by Lycan III. Lycan 

III at ¶ 7-18. We repeat that history below.

{¶ 10} In Lycan I, the Eighth District reversed the Cuyahoga County 

Common Pleas Court’s dismissal of appellees’ claims for restitution and 

declaratory relief, reversed the trial court’s denial of appellees’ class-certification 

motion, and determined that appellees’ failure to challenge their fines before paying 

them did not necessarily foreclose appellees from proving a set of facts under which 

it could be deemed unjust for the city to retain the payments. Id. at ¶ 5-11.

{¶ 11} On remand from Lycan I, the city argued in the trial court that the 

character of its notices of liability, combined with appellees’ opportunity to 

participate in the administrative-appeal process, constituted quasi-judicial 

administrative proceedings from which the preclusive effect of res judicata arose. 

But on February 8, 2013, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to

appellees. That decision was two sentences long. In the first sentence, the trial 

court simply granted appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment without 

providing any reasoning. In the second sentence, the trial court set a hearing date 

for appellees’ class-certification motion. The city did not seek an interlocutory 

appeal of the order.

{¶ 12} On February 19, 2013, the trial court held a hearing regarding 

appellees’ motion for class certification. On February 26, 2013, the trial court 

granted appellees’ motion for class certification for the following class: “All 

persons and entities who were not a ‘vehicle owner’ under CCO 413.031 but were 

issued a notice of citation and/or [assessed] a fine under that ordinance, prior to 

[M]arch 11, 2009, by/or on behalf of Defendant, City of Cleveland.”
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 13} R.C. 2505.02(B)(5) allows an immediate appeal of a classcertification order, and the city used that opportunity to appeal the trial court’s 

February 26, 2013 order to the Eighth District, see Lycan II, 2014-Ohio-203, 6 

N.E.3d 91, at ¶ 12. The city’s assignments of error raised two arguments: (1) that 

appellees had failed to meet the class-action requirements under Civ.R. 23 and (2) 

that res judicata precluded class relief. Lycan II at ¶ 12.

{¶ 14} The Eighth District addressed the merits of the city’s res judicata 

argument in Lycan II. The court of appeals concluded that appellees’ failure to 

pursue administrative relief did not bar their class action “because there was never 

an actual ‘judgment’ rendered by a court, or administrative tribunal, of competent 

jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 15. Moreover, the court noted, even if an administrative 

decision had been rendered, the city’s parking-violations bureau could not have 

decided appellees’ unjust-enrichment and declaratory-judgment claims. Id. The 

court declined to follow what it termed the “expansive view of res judicata” set 

forth in Carroll v. Cleveland, 522 Fed.Appx. 299 (6th Cir.2013), abrogated on 

other grounds as stated in Harrison v. Montgomery Cty., 997 F.3d 643 (6th 

Cir.2021), and Foor v. Cleveland, N.D.Ohio No. 1:12 cv 1754, 2013 WL 4427432 

(Aug. 15, 2013). Lycan II at ¶ 14. The court concluded that “fairness and justice 

would not support the application of res judicata in this case.” Id. at ¶ 19. It 

proceeded to address the city’s challenge to the trial court’s grant of class 

certification, concluding that the class met all the requirements under Civ.R. 23 for 

certification and affirming the trial court’s class-certification order. Lycan II at 

¶ 47-48.

{¶ 15} In Lycan III, 146 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-422, 51 N.E.3d 593, this 

court concluded that appellees had satisfied the requirements for class certification 

under Civ.R. 23 but determined that the Eighth District had erred in Lycan II by 

addressing the city’s res judicata defense in the absence of a final, appealable order 
Supreme Court of Ohio

7

from the trial court on that question. Lycan III at ¶ 32. Accordingly, this court

remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Id.

{¶ 16} On remand, the city moved for summary judgment and for 

reconsideration of the trial court’s February 8, 2013 order granting partial summary 

judgment to appellees. The trial court ruled in favor of the class, awarded the class 

$4,121,185.89, and denied the class’s request for an additional award of 

$1,842,563.51 for the “time value” regarding the funds that had been wrongfully 

withheld.

{¶ 17} The city appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Eighth District, 

arguing, among other things, that the trial court had erred in granting summary 

judgment in favor of appellees because the class had failed to “exhaust the 

administrative process” before filing the class-action suit and because the class was 

“barred from proceeding by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.” The 

Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that appellees were 

not required to exhaust the administrative remedies under the ordinance prior to 

pursuing a judicial remedy, because participation in the administrative-hearing 

process would have been futile, 2019-Ohio-3510, 142 N.E.3d 210, ¶ 24, and that 

the city had waived its res judicata argument, id. at ¶ 33. The court of appeals 

pointed to the city’s statement in its motion for reconsideration and for summary 

judgment that it “does not re-litigate the issue of res judicata with the motion.”

2019-Ohio-3510 at ¶ 31.

{¶ 18} We accepted the city’s discretionary appeal on two propositions of 

law. See 159 Ohio St.3d 1427, 2020-Ohio-3473, 148 N.E.3d 569 (accepting for 

review the city’s first proposition of law); 160 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2020-Ohio-5239, 

156 N.E.3d 912 (accepting for review the city’s second proposition of law). The 

city’s propositions of law are as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

Proposition of Law No. 1: Ohio municipalities have homerule authority to establish civil camera enforcement administrative 

proceedings which include administrative hearings. Individuals 

who have declined to participate in the adequate remedy at law 

available to them in the available administrative hearing process 

have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as a matter of 

law and are thereby precluded from seeking judicial remedy 

including claims for unjust enrichment. (Accord Walker v. Toledo, 

143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461, 39 N.E.3d 474).

Proposition of Law No. 2: A final judgment occurs for 

purposes of applying the res judicata doctrine when individuals who 

have received a civil traffic camera citation issued pursuant to a 

municipal ordinance knowingly admit to the violation through 

payment of the civil penalty without contesting the citation by 

participating in the established administrative appeal process. 

(Accord Carroll v. Cleveland, 522 Fed.Appx. 299 (6th Cir.2013)).

{¶ 19} Because we determine that appellees’ claims are barred by res 

judicata, we resolve the case based on the second proposition of law. Therefore, 

we decline to address the first proposition of law.

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 20} Appellees chose to admit their liability for traffic violations recorded 

by the city’s automated-traffic-enforcement cameras through the administrative 

procedure that the city had in place and forewent the opportunity to dispute the 

city’s ability to ticket vehicle lessees under CCO 413.031. Res judicata prevents 

appellees from litigating in this action the issue whether they were properly cited 

in the first instance. The argument that they were not liable as vehicle lessees was 

available to appellees at the administrative level. The argument has been raised 
Supreme Court of Ohio

9

successfully by a similarly situated lessee of a vehicle caught committing traffic 

violations by a city traffic-enforcement camera. See Dickson & Campbell, 181 

Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 N.E.2d 964, at ¶ 1-5, 39, 50, 55. And that 

lessee followed the administrative-appeal process available under CCO 413.031. 

Dickson & Campbell at ¶ 1-5.

A. Standard of review

{¶ 21} “Application of the doctrine of res judicata/collateral estoppel to a 

particular issue is a question of law. State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement 

Bd., 174 Ohio App.3d 135, 2007-Ohio-6594, 881 N.E.2d 294, ¶ 41 (10th Dist.). 

Accordingly, it is reviewed under a de novo standard of review, i.e., without 

deference to the lower court’s decision. Rossow v. Ravenna, 11th Dist. Portage No. 

2001-P-0036, 2002 WL 480061 (Mar. 29, 2002).” State v. Hill, 177 Ohio App.3d 

171, 2008-Ohio-3509, 894 N.E.2d 108, ¶ 37 (11th Dist.).

B. Res judicata

{¶ 22} “The doctrine of res judicata involves both claim preclusion 

(historically called estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion 

(traditionally known as collateral estoppel).” Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio 

St.3d 379, 381, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). This case involves claim preclusion. Claim 

preclusion makes “ ‘an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to 

litigation * * * conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated 

in a first lawsuit.’ ” Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62, 

558 N.E.2d 1178 (1990), quoting Rogers v. Whitehall, 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 69, 494 

N.E.2d 1387 (1986).

{¶ 23} “[C]laim preclusion has four elements in Ohio: (1) a prior final, valid 

decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action 

involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising 

claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the 

previous action.” Hapgood v. Warren, 127 F.3d 490, 493 (6th Cir.1997).

C. Application of the res judicata factors

1. Prior final, valid decision

{¶ 24} The first factor for determining whether res judicata applies is 

whether there was a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Id. This court has held that “[t]he doctrine [of res judicata] applies to 

administrative proceedings.” State ex rel. Washington v. Indus. Comm., 112 Ohio 

St.3d 86, 2006-Ohio-6505, 858 N.E.2d 353, ¶ 11; see also State ex rel. Schachter 

v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-1704, 905 

N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 29 (“Res judicata, whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion,

applies to quasi-judicial administrative proceedings”).

{¶ 25} In Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461, 39 

N.E.3d 474, superseded by statute as stated in State ex rel. Magsig v. Toledo, 160 

Ohio St.3d 342, 2020-Ohio-3416, 156 N.E.3d 899, this court acknowledged that at 

the time the tickets at issue in this case were generated, municipalities could use an 

administrative process to address protests to liability for traffic-camera-related 

tickets. See id. at ¶ 3. This court held that “Ohio municipalities have home-rule 

authority to establish administrative proceedings, including administrative 

hearings, related to civil enforcement of traffic ordinances” and that “these 

administrative proceedings must be exhausted before offenders or the municipality 

can pursue judicial remedies.” Id. Later, the General Assembly amended R.C. 

1901.20(A)(1) and gave municipal courts “ ‘exclusive jurisdiction over every civil 

action concerning a violation of a state traffic law or a municipal traffic 

ordinance.’ ” (Emphasis added in Magsig.) Id. at ¶ 11, quoting R.C. 

1901.20(A)(1).

{¶ 26} But before the change to R.C. 1901.20(A)(1) went into effect, such 

an administrative process was the forum for contesting traffic-camera-generated
Supreme Court of Ohio

11

tickets or admitting liability for the violations by paying a civil fine. Appellees here 

all participated in the city’s forum when they admitted their liability by paying their 

civil fines. And under the city’s process, a person who exhausted the 

administrative-appeal process and then wished to dispute the hearing officer’s 

conclusion could appeal that decision to the common pleas court under R.C. 

2506.01. In State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573, 

859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 15, this court recognized that “the civil hearing process provided 

by [CCO] 413.031(k) involves the exercise of quasi-judicial authority.” Res 

judicata operates to prevent the relitigation of claims that were considered and 

determined—or that could have been considered and determined—in a prior 

action. State ex rel. B.O.C. Group v. Indus. Comm., 58 Ohio St.3d 199, 200, 569 

N.E.2d 496 (1991).

{¶ 27} That appellees decided to take a shortcut in the administrative 

process does not mean that they did not participate in the process. They chose an 

available route: to not dispute their tickets and pay their fines. And in doing so, 

they ended the case between themselves and the city. They could have contested 

their tickets at the administrative level and, if they were unsuccessful, appealed the 

administrative decision to the common pleas court, as did the plaintiffs in Dickson 

& Campbell, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 N.E.2d 964, at ¶ 1-3. But 

appellees did not do so.

{¶ 28} In Carroll, 522 Fed.Appx. 299, the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit addressed the same ordinance at issue in this case, CCO 

413.031, and considered whether the ordinance applied to vehicle lessees who had 

been ticketed under the ordinance and had paid their fines rather than appealing 

through the city’s administrative process. Carroll at 300-301. The Carroll

plaintiffs asserted that the fines that the city had collected were unconstitutional 

takings under state and federal law. Id. at 300. The court of appeals concluded that 

claim preclusion barred the plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 304-307. The court explained 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

that claim preclusion “ ‘is * * * applicable to actions which have been reviewed 

before an administrative body, in which there has been no appeal made pursuant to 

R.C. 2506.01.’ ” (Ellipsis added in Carroll.) Id. at 303, quoting Wade v. Cleveland, 

8 Ohio App.3d 176, 456 N.E.2d 829 (8th Dist.1982). Regarding the question 

whether there had been a final judgment, the court in Carroll likened vehicle lessees 

who had simply paid their civil fines under CCO 413.031 to parties who had settled 

their claims in a civil case: “Just as claim preclusion applies to a party who settles 

a civil case and later attempts to litigate claims that she could have pursued in the 

case that she settled, so too does it apply to [a]ppellants who, instead of contesting 

their citations, conceded civil liability by paying their fines.” Carroll at 304.

{¶ 29} We agree with the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning. Therefore, we

determine that the city’s administrative process, whereby appellees chose not to 

contest their tickets and paid their civil fines, satisfied the requirement of “a prior 

final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Hapgood, 

127 F.3d at 493.

2. Same parties

{¶ 30} The second factor for determining whether res judicata applies is 

whether there is a second action involving the same parties as the first action. Id. 

The parties in the class-action suit are the same parties as those at the administrative 

level: vehicles lessees who were ticketed under CCO 413.031 and the city of 

Cleveland.

3. Raising claims that could have been asserted in the first action

{¶ 31} The third factor involves whether the subsequent action raised 

claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action. Hapgood at 493. 

Appellees could have litigated at the administrative level the issue whether CCO 

413.031 is inapplicable to vehicle lessees, as did the plaintiffs in Dickson & 

Campbell, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 N.E.2d 964. Based on 

Dickson & Campbell, we know that appellees could have been successful in raising 
Supreme Court of Ohio

13

that defense at the administrative level. See id. at ¶ 55. And if they had raised 

issues outside those that the hearing officer was authorized to decide, such as 

constitutional issues, they could have appealed and raised those issues to the 

common pleas court and then to the court of appeals if necessary. See, e.g., Pivonka 

v. Corcoran, 162 Ohio St.3d 326, 2020-Ohio-3476, 165 N.E.3d 1098, ¶ 24.

4. Action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject 

matter of the previous action

{¶ 32} Finally, in evaluating whether res judicata applies, we must 

determine whether the second action arose out of the same transaction or

occurrence as the previous action. Hapgood, 127 F.3d at 493. The class action 

here and the administrative proceedings all emanated from appellees’ having 

received tickets because a traffic-enforcement camera recorded their leased 

vehicles involved in the violation of a traffic ordinance. The only difference in this 

action is that appellees apparently have the benefit of knowledge that another 

vehicle lessee went through the administrative process and then obtained a 

judgment determining that CCO 413.031 did not apply to vehicle lessees. See

generally Dickson & Campbell.

D. Waiver

{¶ 33} The Eighth District held that the city waived its res judicata 

argument by abandoning it below. It explained: “Following the Ohio Supreme 

Court’s remand in Lycan III, [146 Ohio St.3d 29, 2016-Ohio-422, 51 N.E.3d 593,]

the City never raised the res judicata argument, nor did it ask the trial court to rule 

on this issue.” 2019-Ohio-3510, 142 N.E.3d 210, at ¶ 31. The court of appeals 

noted: “In fact, in its motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment, 

the City specifically stated that it ‘does not re-litigate the issue of res judicata with 

the motion.’ ” Id.

{¶ 34} But the city’s res judicata argument existed in the case from near the 

beginning, when it was mentioned in a footnote in a motion for summary judgment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

in 2012. And in Lycan III, this court held that the Eighth District’s ruling in Lycan 

II, 2014-Ohio-203, 6 N.E.3d 91, on the res judicata issue following the remand in 

Lycan I, 2010-Ohio-6021, was not a final appealable order. Lycan III at ¶ 24. 

Therefore, the city’s statement in its motion for reconsideration and for summary 

judgment in the trial court that it “does not re-litigate the issue of res judicata” was 

appropriate—it did not need to relitigate it. It was already argued in the trial court 

and decided by that court and still needed to be determined by the court of appeals. 

Before the city’s “not re-litigate the issue” statement, it set forth in its motion for 

reconsideration and for summary judgment what this court had done in Lycan III: 

vacated the Eighth District’s judgment with respect to the res judicata issue and 

remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at ¶ 32. During the 

September 7, 2016, hearing on the city’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court 

asked the city’s counsel, “[Y]ou’re saying then that you still have the ability to 

argue standing and res judicata in your motion for summary judgment regardless of 

not discussing or having that argument before the Supreme Court. You don’t 

believe it’s waived, it’s part of the argument that you would make in your motion 

for summary judgment?” The city’s counsel responded, “That’s correct, Your 

Honor.”

{¶ 35} The issue was still live following the trial court’s 2013 partial grant 

of summary judgment that this court held was not a final order on the res judicata 

issue in Lycan III. The trial court’s 2013 judgment would become final and 

appealable on the issuance of a final order; but the issue was still preserved and was 

ripe for appeal when the city filed its noninterlocutory appeal following remand 

from the R.C. 2505.02(B)(5) class-action-certification interlocutory appeal.

{¶ 36} Following remand from this court in Lycan III, 146 Ohio St.3d 29, 

2016-Ohio-422, 51 N.E.3d 593, the trial court denied the city’s motion for summary 

judgment in a one-line entry. The Eighth District concluded that the city had 

waived its res judicata argument, when in fact it had never been properly reviewed 
Supreme Court of Ohio

15

on appeal. See 2019-Ohio-3510, 142 N.E.3d 210, at ¶ 33. As noted above, the city 

first raised the argument in a motion for summary judgment when the case was on 

remand to the trial court following the Eighth District’s decision in Lycan I, 2010-

Ohio-6021. See Lycan III at ¶ 13. We find no waiver of the res judicata issue in 

this case, just an unnecessarily protracted resolution. See id. at ¶ 33-35 (Kennedy, 

J., dissenting).

{¶ 37} Appellees argue that the city waived its res judicata defense by 

failing to plead it in a responsive pleading in the trial court. But the city did plead 

in its answer to appellees’ amended complaint that “[p]laintiffs are collaterally 

estopped from filing suit.” The res judicata issue was before the trial court 

following the remand in Lycan I, was decided substantively by the court of appeals 

in Lycan II, and was considered once before by this court in Lycan III, in which this 

court determined that the court of appeals had improperly considered the issue for 

lack of a final, appealable order. No court in this case has determined that the city 

waived its res judicata defense by failing to specifically plead it in a responsive 

pleading. We decline to do so here.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 38} By paying their civil fines and not disputing their liability under 

CCO 413.031, appellees admitted their liability for their traffic violations recorded 

by the city’s automated-traffic-enforcement cameras. That ended the case between 

appellees and the city as to those incidents. Res judicata prevents a subsequent

lawsuit based on CCO 413.031’s inapplicability to vehicle lessees. The four 

requirements for res judicata to apply were met in this case: (1) appellees’ original 

admissions of liability constituted prior final, valid decisions on the merits by a 

court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involved the same parties; 

(3) the second action raised claims that were or could have been litigated in the first 

actions; and (4) the second action arose out of the same occurrences that were the 

subject matter of the previous actions.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16

{¶ 39} We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and 

remand the matter to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the city.

Judgment reversed

and cause remanded.

FISCHER and DEWINE, JJ., concur.

STEWART, J., concurs in judgment only.

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DONNELLY and 

BRUNNER, JJ.

_________________

O’CONNOR, C.J., dissenting.

{¶ 40} The lead opinion determines that appellees’2payment of their civil 

fines under appellant the city of Cleveland’s automated-traffic-enforcement system 

constituted admissions to their traffic violations and were final judgments, such that 

appellees’ unjust-enrichment claims against the city are barred by res judicata. 

Because I disagree with the conclusion that res judicata applies to appellees’ claims, 

I dissent.

{¶ 41} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a valid, final judgment rendered 

upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the 

transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava

v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995). The lead 

opinion determines that appellees’ payment of their civil fines for their traffic 

citations satisfied the requirement of a “a prior final, valid decision on the merits 

by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Hapgood v. Warren, 127 F.3d 490, 493 (6th 

Cir.1997), for purposes of res judicata. It reasons that by paying the civil fines, 

2. Appellees are Janine Lycan, Thomas Pavlish, Jeanne Task, Lindsey Charna, Ken Fogle, John T. 

Murphy, and other members of a class who filed suit challenging the fines imposed against vehicle 

lessees by appellant, the city of Cleveland, for traffic violations recorded by the city’s automatedtraffic-enforcement cameras.
Supreme Court of Ohio

17

appellees “ended the case between themselves and the city,” lead opinion, ¶ 27, a 

case that never started. And it says that because appellees could have contested 

their citations through the city’s administrative process rather than paying their 

fines, that mere possibility operates as a valid, prior judgment for res judicata 

purposes.

{¶ 42} It has been said that 

“the doctrine of res judicata is to be applied in particular situations 

as fairness and justice require, and that it is not to be applied so 

rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or so as to work an injustice. 

* * * Underlying all discussion of the problem must be the principle 

of fundamental fairness in the due process sense. The public policy 

underlying the principle of res judicata must be considered together 

with the policy that a party shall not be deprived of a fair adversary 

proceeding in which to present his case.”

(Emphasis and ellipsis added in Grava.) Id. at 386 (Douglas, J., dissenting),

quoting 46 American Jurisprudence 2d, Judgments, Section 522, at 786-787 (1994),

and citing Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 193, 202, 443

N.E.2d 978 (1983).

{¶ 43} The lead opinion suggests that appellees should have challenged 

their citations by appealing them to the city’s parking-violations bureau, as did the 

law-firm plaintiff in Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. Cleveland, 181 Ohio App.3d 

238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 N.E.2d 964, ¶ 1-3 (8th Dist.). But according to evidence 

submitted by appellees, while the Dickson & Campbell proceedings were pending 

but before the court of appeals issued its decision in that case, Dickson & Campbell, 

L.L.C., the plaintiff in that case, received two delinquency notices from the city 

stating that the failure to respond to its citations had resulted in a $20 penalty and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

18

warning that the continued failure to respond would result in an additional $40 fee, 

increasing the original fine to $160. The notices also stated that Dickson & 

Campbell had forfeited its right to appeal based on its “failure to respond to the first 

notification.” The firm also received a “credit rating warning” stating that its 

“delinquent obligation” would be reported to a national credit bureau unless 

payment of the delinquent amounts was received within 30 days of the notice. 

These penalties were assessed despite the firm’s having pursued an appeal of its 

citations through the city’s administrative procedures. See Dickson & Campbell at 

¶ 2-4.

{¶ 44} Thus, according to the lead opinion, the only path available to 

appellees to avoid the application of res judicata and to recover the fines the city 

had improperly collected from vehicle lessees under the city’s program was for 

appellees to subject themselves to an expensive and lengthy legal process while 

receiving threats about the validity of their legal actions, threats of increased 

penalties, and negative hits to their credit scores. This is hardly an example of a

“fair adversary proceeding” for which the doctrine of res judicata was meant to 

endorse.

{¶ 45} The lead opinion also cites the decision of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Carroll v. Cleveland, 522 Fed.Appx. 299 (6th 

Cir.2013), abrogated on other grounds as stated in Harrison v. Montgomery Cty., 

997 F.3d 643 (6th Cir.2021). Similar to this case, Carroll involved a class-action 

lawsuit based on traffic citations that had been issued to vehicle lessees under 

Cleveland Codified Ordinances (“CCO”) 413.031 and for which the plaintiffs had 

paid their civil fines rather than challenging them through administrative appeals. 

Carroll at 300-301. The Carroll plaintiffs had challenged the fines that the city had 

collected as unconstitutional takings under state and federal law. Id. at 300. The 

Carroll court held, “Payment of the fines, and acceptance of that payment by the 

City, qualifies as a final judgment.” Id. at 304.
Supreme Court of Ohio

19

{¶ 46} Appellees argue that Carroll is an aberration and that the federal 

court in that case misconstrued Ohio law. Carroll is not an officially published 

decision and, as such, it is not binding on the federal courts. See Harrison at 651. 

Moreover, it is not controlling authority on this court. See Kelly v. Ford Motor Co., 

104 Ohio App. 185, 194, 139 N.E.2d 99 (8th Dist.1957). It is also unpersuasive.

{¶ 47} In Carroll, the federal court likened the payment of the civil fine to 

the entry into a settlement decree in a civil case and, therefore, held that it 

constituted a final disposition. Id. at 304. It also made the following conclusion 

regarding the effect of admitting liability by paying a civil fine: “Had they chosen 

to contest the citations, [plaintiffs] would have received ample opportunity to 

develop the facts surrounding their citations and to present their arguments about 

the statute’s constitutionality, first in an administrative proceeding, then in the Ohio 

court system.” Id. That presumptuous conclusion describes a plaintiff’s obligation 

to exhaust administrative remedies, not whether a valid, final judgment on the 

merits exists for res judicata purposes. Moreover, for the following reasons, the 

federal court’s description of the nature of the proceedings in Carroll does not hold 

up against the facts in this case.

{¶ 48} First, although one might assume it is logical to equate the payment 

of the civil fine with an admission of liability, appellees here were presented with 

a Catch-22 situation. On one hand, the notices of liability stated that payment of 

the civil fine would constitute an admission to the alleged traffic violation. On the 

other hand, CCO 413.031(k) stated: “The failure to give notice of appeal or pay the 

civil penalty within [the 21-day] time period shall constitute a waiver of the right 

to contest the ticket and shall be considered an admission.” That language suggests 

that by paying the civil penalty, appellees preserved their ability to appeal the 

citation and contest liability.

{¶ 49} Second, contrary to the federal court’s observation in Carroll, there 

was hardly “ample opportunity” for appellees to develop the facts and present legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

20

arguments in an administrative proceeding. Appellees have not contested that they 

were driving the cars when the automated cameras photographed them nor have 

they contested that they committed the traffic violations. Indeed, they even admit 

they were the vehicles’ lessees. Rather, they maintain that the city’s issuance of 

citations against vehicle lessees was unlawful. But the city had decided as a matter 

of law that CCO 413.031 was enforceable against vehicle lessees. Thus, there were 

no facts or legal arguments to develop until the city’s practice of citing vehicle 

lessees under the automated-traffic-enforcement program was determined to be 

unlawful in Dickson & Campbell, 181 Ohio App.3d 238, 2009-Ohio-738, 908 

N.E.2d 964, at ¶ 54-55, a case decided after the time for appellees to initiate an 

administrative appeal had expired. Thus, this is unlike the unconstitutional-takings 

argument that the plaintiffs in Carroll asserted.

{¶ 50} As the federal court acknowledged in Carroll, application of res 

judicata requires the existence of “ ‘a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a 

court of competent jurisdiction.’ ” (Emphasis added in Carroll.) Id., 522

Fed.Appx. at 303, quoting Hapgood, 127 F.3d at 493. In my view, we cannot say 

that the mere payment of the civil fines under these circumstances constituted a 

decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the doctrine 

of res judicata does not bar appellees’ claims of unjust enrichment.

{¶ 51} For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.

DONNELLY and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., W. Craig Bashein, and John P. Hurst; Paul 

W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., Paul W. Flowers, and Louis E. Grube; and The Dickson 

Firm, L.L.C., and Blake A. Dickson, for appellees.

Mark D. Griffin, Cleveland Director of Law, and Craig J. Morice, Assistant 

Director of Law, for appellant.
Supreme Court of Ohio

21

Mayle, L.L.C., and Andrew R. Mayle, in support of neither party, for 

amicus curiae Susan Magsig.

Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., Patrick J. Perotti, and Frank A. Bartela, 

urging affirmance for amicus curiae Allyson Eighmey.

Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., Patrick J. Perotti, and Frank A. Bartela, 

urging affirmance for amicus curiae Nell Lindsay.

Garry E. Hunter, General Counsel, Ohio Municipal League; and Frost 

Brown Todd, L.L.C., Philip K. Hartmann, Yazan S. Ashrawi, and Christopher D. 

Thomas, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Municipal League.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Quintin F. Lindsmith, urging reversal for 

amicus curiae Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.

_________________