Court Opinion

ID: 9961393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 16:14:31.256938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:41.402377
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secy. of State, 2024-Ohio-1265.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSH BROWN                           Case No. 2023-00510PQ
 LLC
                                                        Judge Lisa L. Sadler
         Requester
                                                        ENTRY
         v.

 OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE

         Respondent

        {¶1} On March 8, 2024, Respondent moved for a stay of execution of this Court’s
Decision and Entry of February 6, 2024, issued under R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), until
Respondent’s appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals (case No. 24AP-170) is
concluded. Respondent urges that, pursuant to Civ.R. 62(B) and (C), he is entitled to a
stay of execution, as a matter of right, without a requirement to post bond. Requester
has not filed a timely response to Respondent’s motion. The Court grants Respondent’s
motion for reasons set forth below.
        {¶2} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.03(D), the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure “shall govern
practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent
with [R.C. Chapter 2743].” Rule 62 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure governs a stay
of proceedings to enforce a judgment. Civ.R. 62 is consistent with R.C. Chapter 2743
insofar as a request for a stay generally is required to be made in a trial court in the first
instance. See App.R. 7(A) (“[a]pplication for a stay of the judgment or order of a trial court
pending appeal, or for the determination of the amount of and the approval of a
supersedeas bond, must ordinarily be made in the first instance in the trial court”); United
States Bank Natl. Assn. v. Perdeau, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1226, 2014-Ohio-155, ¶ 3
(“App.R. 7(A) requires that a request for a stay must first be made in the trial court, unless
a justifiable reason for not doing so can be shown”).
        {¶3} Civ.R. 62 provides:
Case No. 2023-00510PQ                      -2-                                    ENTRY

      ***

         (B) Stay upon appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant may obtain
      a stay of execution of a judgment or any proceedings to enforce a judgment
      by giving an adequate supersedeas bond. The bond may be given at or
      after the time of filing the notice of appeal. The stay is effective when the
      supersedeas bond is approved by the court.

         (C) Stay in favor of the government. When an appeal is taken by this
      state or political subdivision, or administrative agency of either, or by any
      officer thereof acting in his representative capacity and the operation or
      enforcement of the judgment is stayed, no bond, obligation or other security
      shall be required from the appellant.

      ***

      {¶4} In State ex rel. Ocasek v. Riley, 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490, 377 N.E.2d 792
(1978), the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted a former version of Civ.R. 62(B) and (C),
stating: “Pursuant to this rule, defendants-appellants [who were government actors] are
entitled to a stay of the judgment as a matter of right. The lone requirement of Civ. R.
62(B) is the giving of an adequate supersedeas bond.          Civ. R. 62(C) makes this
requirement unnecessary in this case, and respondent has no discretion to deny the stay.”
(Emphasis added.) See State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl, 87 Ohio St.3d 568, 571,
722 N.E.2d 73 (2000) (“[o]ur interpretation of Civ.R. 62(B) and (C) in Ocasek comports
with the interpretation of the similarly worded Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) and (e) by the leading
treatises and a majority of federal courts”). Accord Andrew Welsh-Huggins v. Office of
the Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County, Ohio, Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-00793PQ (Mar. 13,
2019) (entry granting stay of execution of judgment in a public-records case); John
Reigert v. State of Ohio Med. Bd., Ct. of Cl. No. 2022-00750PQ (June 13, 2023) (entry
granting stay of execution in a public-records case).
      {¶5} Based on Civ.R. 62, as interpreted by Ohio case law, and this Court’s own
precedent, the Court holds that Respondent is entitled to a stay of the Court’s final
Case No. 2023-00510PQ                      -3-                                    ENTRY

judgment in this case. The Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to stay execution of the
Court’s final judgment of February 6, 2024. The Court ORDERS that the Court’s final
judgment in this case is stayed until Respondent’s appeal to the Tenth District Court of
Appeals (case No. 24AP-170) is concluded. The Court further ORDERS that no bond,
obligation, or other security is required from Respondent in accordance with Civ.R. 62(C).
Costs associated with this entry shall be absorbed by the Court.

                                          LISA L. SADLER
                                          Judge

Filed March 20, 2024
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/4/24