Opinion ID: 612543
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the 2008 Action is Premised on a New Transaction or Occurrence

Text: Ohio's res judicata doctrine precludes later suits based on the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the [first] action arose. Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, 229 (1995). Transaction is defined as a common nucleus of operative facts. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 cmt. b (1982)). `That a number of different legal theories casting liability on an actor may apply to a given episode does not create multiple transactions and hence multiple claims. This remains true although the several legal theories ... would emphasize different elements of the facts. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 cmt. c). In Grava, the plaintiff's second application for a zoning certificate [wa]s barred by the doctrine of res judicata  because it and a previous application sought permission to construct exactly the same building on the same tract of land. Id.; see also Hundley v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc., No. 19870, 2003 WL 22763899, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 21, 2003) (holding that a plaintiff relied on the same operative facts because both of his suits were based upon the invoices that [he] received ... between January and December of 2002 and the only difference was the mathematical errors that he alleged). The plaintiff argued that barring the second action would be unfair, but the Ohio Supreme Court found that,  [a]bsent changed circumstances, refusing to allow [the plaintiff] to use an alternative legal theory overlooked in the previous proceedings does not work an injustice. Grava, 653 N.E.2d at 230 (emphasis added). We find the 2004 and 2007 runway expansions are distinct events from any earlier expansion and that they resulted in new facts and changed circumstances, id., not merely new legal theories. Indeed, the relators submit the expansions completed after the commencement of the 2002 Action caused worsening conditions and that there was a substantial change in the scope of continuing harm related to the noise, property damage, and [health] dangers. Appellant Br. 24. Accordingly, the claims related to the 2004 and 2007 expansions are premised on a new transaction or occurrence and res judicata cannot apply to bar them. In sum, the district court erred in dismissing the 2008 Action as to Fouad because the claims based upon the 2004 and 2007 expansions could not have been raised in the 2002 Action and are premised on a new transaction or occurrence distinct from the subject matter of the 2002 Action.