Court Opinion

ID: 9392199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 15:08:45.955862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.128016
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Supplee v. Ohio Rail Dev. Comm., 2023-Ohio-1383.]

                             IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

 CHARLES SUPPLEE                                       Case No. 2022-00263JD

        Plaintiff                                      Judge Patrick E. Sheeran
                                                       Magistrate Scott Sheets
        v.
                                                       ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
 OHIO RAIL DEVELOPMENT                                 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 COMMISSION

        Defendant

        {¶1} Defendant’s February 1, 2023 motion for summary judgment is now fully
briefed and before the Court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D). Plaintiff’s
complaint asserts claims for adverse possession and trespass against Defendant, Ohio
Rail Development Commission (the Commission). In its motion, the Commission argues
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (1) the Court of Claims lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over actions against the Commission, (2) claims for adverse
possession and claims to quiet title cannot be asserted against the state, and (3) the
Commission could not have trespassed on its own land. Upon review, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
        {¶2} In reviewing motions for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56, it is well-
established that the Court may grant summary judgment when, after
        construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party:
        (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled
        to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but
        one conclusion, that conclusion being adverse to the nonmoving party.
Robinette v. Orthopedics, Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97AP-1299, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS
2038, 7 (1999).
        {¶3} Citing R.C. 4981.14(B)(4), the Commission initially argues that the Court of
Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.           The Court agrees.
Case No. 2022-00263JD                         -2-                                  ENTRY

R.C. 4981.14(B)(4) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny actions against the [C]ommission
shall be brought in the court of common pleas in Franklin county.” Thus, the Court finds
that the plain language of R.C. 4981.14(B)(4) mandates that claims against the
Commission must be filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Consequently,
Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, it declines to address Defendant’s other arguments in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
         {¶4} For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment.         As the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice. Court costs are assessed against Plaintiff. The clerk shall
serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

                                             PATRICK E. SHEERAN
                                             Judge

Filed March 24, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 4/27/23