Supplee v. Ohio Rail Dev. Comm. , 2023 Ohio 1383 ( 2023 )

[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