[Cite as Jones v. Vermilion Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 2022

- Ohio

- 3949.]

IN THE CO U R T O F CL A IMS O F OHIO

{¶1} On September 28, 2022, a Special Master issued a R e com mendation To
D ismiss in this case

. The Special Master state s : On review of the complaint, relators ’ allegations and prayer for relief re l ate entirely to R.C. 121.22 and other declaratory and injunctive matt ers. (Complaint at 6

- 7.) The com plaint does not allege denial of access to public
records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code. The Special Master finds th e Cour t of Claims lacks jurisdiction over relators ’
stated causes of a ction and recommends the complain t be DISMISS ED pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). (Recommendation To Dismiss, 2.) The Special Master also recommends dismissal of Requesters ’ Complaint purs u ant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6). (Recommendation To Dismiss, 3.)
The Special Master further state s ,

Up on cons idera tio n of the pleadings and attachments, the Special
Master recommends the court dismiss relators ’ claims for lack of jurisdictio n over the subjec t ma tter, without pr ejudice. The Special Master further
recommends the court dismi ss relator ’ s claim s for f ailur e t o st ate any claim for which relief may be granted by this court, without prejudice. It is
recommended that costs be assessed to relators. ERIK W. JONES, et al

. Requester s

v.

VERMILION LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
Respondent Case No. 2022

- 00666PQ
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2022

- 00666PQ

- 2

- JUDGME NT ENTR Y

(Re comm endati on To D ism iss, 4

. ) {¶2} T he Ohio Court of Claims “ is a statutorily created court. ” State ex rel. De Wi ne v. Court of Claims of Ohio , 130 Ohi o St.3d 244, 2011

- Ohio

- 5283, 957 N.E.2d 280, ¶ 19

. The jurisdiction of the Ohio Court of Claims “ i s limited by sta tute and specifically confined
to the pow ers con ferred by the legislature. ” State ex rel. De W ine at ¶ 21

. Accord Littleton v. Holmes Siding Contr., Ltd. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP

- 138, 2013

- Ohio

- 5602, ¶ 8
, citing Steward v. State , 8 Ohio App.3d 297, 299, 456 N.E.2d 1333 (10th Dist.1983) ( “[t] he
Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise on ly that jurisdiction specifically conferred upon it by the General Assembly ”)

. {¶3} Under R.C. 2743. 03(A)( 3 ), in addi tion to “ [th e Court of Claims ’ ] exclusive, original j urisdict ion as confer red by [R.C. 2743.03(A)(1) and (2)] , the court of claims has
exclusiv e, original jurisdiction * * * (b) Under sect ion 2743.75 of the Revised Cod e to hear complaints alleging a denial of access to public records in violation of [ R.C. 14 9.43 (B) ]
, regardless of whether the public office or person re spons ibl e for public records is an offi ce or employee of the state or of a political subdivision. ” See R.C. 2743.75(A). Pursuan t to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2)
, “ [n] otwiths tanding any provision to the contrary in this secti on, up on the reco mmendation o f the s pec ial master, the court of cla i ms on its own motion may di smiss [a] complain t a t any time. ” {¶4} The Cou rt adopts the Special Mast er ’ s finding of a lack of s ubject

- m att er jurisdiction over Requesters ’ stated causes of action , a s Requesters essentially present
claims alleging violations of the Ohio Open Meetings Act
, see R.C. 121.22, and bylaws
of the Vermili on Local School District in their Complaint

. The Court does not , however, adopt the Spe cial Master ’s recommendation for a C iv.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal without
pre j udice

. See Z

alvin v. Aye rs , 2020

- Ohio

- 4021, 157 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 35 ( 1st Di st.) ( “ a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6 ) operates as an adjudicat ion on the merits and properly

re sults in a dismissal with prejudice ” ) ; s ee also R.C. 274 3.03(D) (providing t hat the “ Rules
of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter ”)

. {¶5} I n accordance with R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) a nd the Special Master ’ s recommendati on for dismissal of Requesters ’ stated causes of actio n for lack of subject

ma tter jur is dicti on , the Court sua spon te DISMISSES Requester s ’ Complaint wit houtCase No. 2022

- 00666PQ

- 3

- JUDGME NT ENTR Y

prejudice

. Accord Dila tush v. Bd. of Rev iew , 107 O hio App. 55 1, 552

- 553, 160 N .E.2 d 309 (2d Dist.1959) ( “ [w] hen there is a lack of jurisdicti on, a dism issal of the a ction is t he only proper order ” ) ; Pyramid Ents. L.L.C. v. City of Akron Dept. of Neighborhood
Assistance , 9th Dis t. Summit No. 28623, 2018

- Oh io

- 2178, ¶ 18

. Co urt cos ts are assessed equally to Requesters

. The C lerk shall serve upon all parti es noti ce of t his ju dgme nt and i ts date of ent ry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge

Filed October 25 , 2022 S ent to S.C. Reporter 11/ 4/ 22