[Cite as Cincinnati v. Ohio , 2018-Ohio-4498.]

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Vacated Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 7, 2018 Paula Boggs Muething , City Solicitor, Marion E. Haynes and Andrew W. Garth, Chief Counsel, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael DeWine , Ohio Attorney General, Sarah E. Pierce and Renata Y. Staff, Assistant Attorneys General, for Defendant-Appellant. 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. THE STATE OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-170593 TRIAL NO. A-1701966

O P I N I O N.O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

2 

### M ILLER 

### , Judge. 

### {¶1} The state of Ohio challenges the trial court’s judgment that certain provisions of 2016 S.B. 331 (“S.B. 331”) violated the “single-subject” rule in Article II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution. In one assignment of error, the state contends (1) that the trial court erred in ho lding that the provisio ns challenged by the city did not fall within the bill’s single subj ect of, according to the state, creating uniform business regulations across Ohio; and (2) that the trial court inappropriately severed unchallenged pr ovisions of S.B. 331. The state’ s first argument is moot. The

second has merit. 

### {¶2} Those parts of S.B. 331 challenged by the city, collectively referred to as the bill’s “Small Cell Provisions,” amended R.C. Chapter 4939. These amendments are no longer in effect. All have been replaced or repealed by 2018 H.B. 478, effective August 1, 2018. It is well-esta blished that “[t]he role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to i ssue judgments that can be carried into

effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio St.3d 484, 2018-Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9, citing Fortner v. Thomas , 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14, 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970). “Under the mootness doctrine, American courts will not decide cases in which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id. , citing In re A.G. , 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37. Since the challenged provisions are no longer in effect, the first issue raised by the city is moot and we do not address it. 

### {¶3} The trial court also struck as uncons titutional several provisions that had not been challenged by the city. This included S.B. 331’s amendments to R.C. 4111.02, the minimum wage statute, and enactment of R.C. 4113.85, which relates to employer-employee relations. Article IV, Section 4(B) of the Ohio Constitution gives the courts of common pleas original juri sdiction “over all justiciable matters”O HIO F IRST D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEALS

3 properly before them. Justiciability is a concept related to mootness, in that there

must be an actual controve rsy between the parties. Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor

Control Comm. , 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 97-98, 296 N.E.2d 261 (1973); Waldman v.

Pitcher , 70 N.E.3d 1025, 2016-Ohio-5909, ¶ 20-2 1 (1st Dist.). “Actual controversies are presented only when the plaintiff sues an adverse party.” State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton Cty., 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 542, 660 N.E.2d 458 (1996). 

### {¶4} The city did not sue for a judgment concerning the constitutionality of the minimum wage or employer-employee relations law enacted by S.B. 331. Hence, there was no justiciable controversy relating to those provisions , and the trial court was without authority to rule on their constitutionality. See Arbino v. Johnson &

Johnson , 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, 880 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 79 (where only three specific statutes within a bill had been challenged under the single-subject rule, the court could not determine whether the bill violated the single-subject rule as a whole). 

### {¶5} We therefore sustain the state’s assignment of error, in part, and vacate the trial court’s judgment. Judgment vacated.

M OCK , P.J., and Z AYAS , J., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.