Opinion ID: 612543
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Current Claims Could Have Been Raised in the 2002 Action

Text: Pursuant to Ohio's ripeness doctrine, res judicata does not apply to claims that were not ripe for review in a previous action. See Katt v. Dykhouse, 983 F.2d 690, 693 (6th Cir.1992) (applying Michigan's ripeness doctrine to determine that the plaintiff could not have raised a claim in a previous action because that claim did not ripen until after judgment was entered in that action); State v. Smith, No. 4-06-18, 2006 WL 2795609, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Oct. 2, 2006) (declining to apply the doctrine of res judicata because the issue was not previously ripe). Ohio law dictates that a claim is not ripe if the claim rests upon `future events that may not occur as anticipated, or may not occur at all.' State v. McCarty, No. CA2006-04-093, 2007 WL 1394580, at  (Ohio Ct.App. May 14, 2007) (citation omitted). When an injury is not yet present, a claim is not ripe even when the alleged action of the defendant foretells legal injury to the plaintiff. State ex rel. Elyria Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 82 Ohio St.3d 88, 694 N.E.2d 459, 460 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In the 2008 Action, the relators allege the expansion [of the runway] has resulted in increased runway traffic that has interfered with Relator's use and enjoyment of the[ir] Property. Comp. ¶¶ 4-5; see also id. at ¶ 33 (alleging environmental harm from increased air traffic of the expanded runways). The City had planned the Airport's expansion and undertaken the first stage of the expansion well before the 2002 Action was filed, a point the City relies upon heavily; however, the 2004 and 2007 runway expansions had not yet occurred when the relators commenced the 2002 Action and the environmental damages that the relators would incur from those expansions was indeterminate. Hence, the claims about the effects of the 2004 and 2007 runway expansions were not ripe in 2002 under Ohio law because, although the alleged actions of the City expanding the runway may have foretold their injury, the relators' damages were at best speculative at that time. Res judicata, therefore, cannot bar the claims related to the effects of the expansions in 2004 and 2007.