DocketNumber: Appeal No. C-020626, Trial No. A-9900996.
Filed Date: 4/30/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Respondents-appellants, Jerome J. Grogan and Nate's Café, Inc., appeal the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denying their request to hold a hearing on their motion for damages for the unlawful closure of a business. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court below.
{¶ 3} The appellants are the owners of the Elder Café, a tavern located in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati. In 1999, the appellees, the city of Cincinnati and the state of Ohio, through their legal representatives, filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to have the tavern declared a nuisance pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} Ultimately, the trial court granted the appellees the relief sought in their complaint. But by the time that the trial court had issued an injunction ordering the tavern to be padlocked for one year, the tavern had already been padlocked for one year. Thus, the tavern was padlocked for a period of two years.
{¶ 5} The appellants appealed the trial court's judgment granting injunctive relief. Although we affirmed the granting of the injunctive relief, we reversed the trial court's judgment to the extent that the closure had exceeded one year.2 Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to remove the padlocking and to immediately return the tavern to the appellants.3
{¶ 6} On remand, the appellants filed a motion, pursuant to Civ.R. 65, for damages and attorney fees due to the illegal padlocking. The trial court denied the appellants' request to hold a hearing on the motion. In a single assignment of error, the appellants now argue that the trial court erred in denying their request for damages.
{¶ 7} The city of Cincinnati is a political subdivision, as defined by R.C.
{¶ 8} Likewise, the trial court did not err in denying the request for damages with respect to the state of Ohio. The Ohio Court of Claims has original jurisdiction over all civil actions against the state that are permitted by the waiver of immunity contained in R.C.
{¶ 8} Finally, the city prosecutor and the Ohio Attorney General were immune from liability absent an allegation by the appellants that the officials had acted outside the scope of their authority or with extreme bad faith.8 Here, there was no such allegation, and the officials were therefore immune.
{¶ 9} For the foregoing reasons, the appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
{¶ 10} Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.
Doan, P.J., Hildebrandt and Gorman, JJ.