Weil v. Ohio Med. Marijuana Control Comm. , 2023 Ohio 944 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Weil v. Ohio Med. Marijuana Control Comm., 2023-Ohio-944.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Adam Allen Weil, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 22AP-469
v. : (Ct. of Cl. No. 2022-00281JD)
The Ohio Medical Marijuana, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Control Commission,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
:
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on March 23, 2023
On brief: Adam A. Weil, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Amy S. Brown, and
Shaun P. Omen, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
BOGGS, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Adam Allen Weil, appeals a dismissal in the Court of
Claims of Ohio of an action he filed against the “Ohio Marijuana Control Commission.” For
the following reasons, we affirm the Court of Claims' dismissal.
{¶ 2} On March 28, 2022, Weil filed a complaint in the court of claims against the
“Ohio Marijuana Control Commission,” alleging that taxing medical-marijuana sales
violates state law. In response, defendant-appellee, the state of Ohio moved to dismiss
Weil's complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On June 27, 2022, the court of
claims granted the state's motion on the ground that Weil failed to name a proper
No. 22AP-469 2
defendant. The court of claims found that there is no “Ohio Marijuana Control
Commission” and that, under R.C. 3796.02, Ohio's “medical marijuana control program”
is established within the Department of Commerce and the State Board of Pharmacy.
(June 27, 2022 Journal Entry of Dismissal at 2.) The court of claims reasoned that under
R.C. 2743.13(A) and under L.C.C.R. 4(A) Weil failed to name a state agency as a defendant
and did not seek to amend his complaint to name a proper defendant.
{¶ 3} In his appeal to this court, Weil asserts that, in granting the motion to
dismiss, the court of claims erred by not reaching the merits of his claims, “not reviewing
laws in business that are established by the” Revised Code, and “allowing the commission
to operate beyond [its] scope of authority and collect a tax unlawfully.” (Appellant's Brief
at 5.) We jointly consider these assignments of error.
{¶ 4} This court reviews a trial court's decision on Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6)
motions under a de novo standard of review. See Pankey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.,
10th Dist. No. 13AP-701, 2014-Ohio-2907, ¶ 7; Wiltz v. Accountancy Bd. Of Ohio, 10th Dist.
No. 14AP-645, 2015-Ohio-2493, ¶ 5-6.
{¶ 5} Under R.C. 2743.02, the only defendant in original actions in the court of
claims is the state. R.C. 2743.13(A) requires that a complaint filed against the state in the
court of claims must “name as defendant each state department, board, office, commission,
agency, institution, or other instrumentality whose actions are alleged as the basis of
complaint.” Here, Weil named the “Ohio Marijuana Control Commission” as the sole
defendant. As the court of claims noted, however, the Ohio Marijuana Control Commission
does not exist. Rather, the state's medical-marijuana program is jointly administered by the
Department of Commerce and the State Board of Pharmacy. Therefore, Weil's complaint
does not name as defendant any “state department, board, office, commission, agency,
No. 22AP-469 3
institution, or other instrumentality.” Id. Without a proper defendant as required by R.C.
2743.13(A), the court of claims does not have jurisdiction over the complaint. The court of
claims properly gave Weil an opportunity to amend his complaint to name a proper
defendant and, when he did not do so, also properly dismissed his complaint.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we find that the court of claims did not err when it dismissed
plaintiff's complaint for failure to name a proper defendant under R.C. 2743.13(A). Weil's
assignments of error are overruled, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of
Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and LELAND, JJ., concur.