P.D. v. Copley-Fairlawn City Sch. Dist. , 2017 Ohio 9132 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as P.D. v. Copley-Fairlawn City Sch. Dist., 
    2017-Ohio-9132
    .]
    STATE OF OHIO                     )                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    )ss:                      NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COUNTY OF SUMMIT                  )
    P.D., et al.                                                C.A. No.   28436
    Appellants
    v.                                                  APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
    ENTERED IN THE
    COPLEY-FAIRLAWN CITY SCHOOL                                 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    DISTRICT                                                    COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
    CASE No.   CV 2015-12-5661
    Appellee
    DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
    Dated: December 20, 2017
    CARR, Presiding Judge.
    {¶1}     Appellants, P.D. and J.D., appeal an order of the Summit County Court of
    Common Pleas that dismissed their administrative appeal. This Court reverses.
    I.
    {¶2}     P.D. and J.D. are the parents of a minor child who was enrolled at Copley High
    School during the 2015-2016 school year. The minor was expelled from school following a
    disciplinary incident in November 2015.             After the expulsion, P.D. and J.D. pursued two
    different administrative remedies: they appealed the District’s denial of a manifestation
    determination related to an alleged disability by filing a due process complaint under Ohio Adm.
    Code 3301-1-05(K)(7) and (K)(22), and they appealed the expulsion to the Board of Education
    under R.C. 3313.66(E). While the due process complaint was pending, the Board of Education
    affirmed the expulsion, and P.D. and J.D. filed an administrative appeal in the Summit County
    Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 3313.66(E) and R.C. Chapter 2506.                 The trial court
    2
    determined that because P.D. and J.D. filed the administrative appeal of the expulsion
    determination before the due process proceedings reached their conclusion, they had failed to
    exhaust their administrative remedies. The trial court dismissed the administrative appeal on that
    basis, and P.D. and J.D. filed this appeal.
    II.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT
    DISMISSED [P.D. AND J.D.’S] APPEAL FOR FAILING TO EXHAUST
    ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
    {¶3}    P.D. and J.D.’s assignment of error is that the trial court erred by dismissing this
    administrative appeal on the basis that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies by waiting
    until the due process complaint procedure had reached its conclusion. This Court agrees.
    {¶4}    Under R.C. 2506.04, a trial court considering an administrative appeal reviews the
    order at issue to determine whether it is “unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious,
    unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative
    evidence on the whole record.” The scope of this Court’s review is more limited. Smith v.
    Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 
    81 Ohio St.3d 608
    , 613 (1998). When reviewing a trial court’s
    decision in an administrative appeal, this Court must ordinarily determine whether, as a matter of
    law, the trial court’s decision is unsupported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and
    substantial evidence. Independence v. Office of Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 
    142 Ohio St.3d 125
    ,
    
    2014-Ohio-4650
    , ¶ 14, citing Kisil v. Sandusky, 
    12 Ohio St.3d 30
    , 34 (1984). This case,
    however, presents solely a matter of law.
    {¶5}       Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense in a civil
    action that must be asserted pursuant to Civ.R. 8 and Civ.R. 12(H). Jones v. Chagrin Falls, 77
    
    3 Ohio St.3d 456
     (1997), syllabus.       The affirmative defense may be asserted in actions in
    mandamus, actions seeking a declaratory judgment, and actions for damages. Kaufman v.
    Newburgh Heights, 
    26 Ohio St.2d 217
    , 219 (1971). In contrast, the affirmative defense of failure
    to exhaust administrative remedies is not available in an appellate proceeding. An administrative
    appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506 is by nature an appeal: the trial court is charged with reviewing
    an administrative decision based on the existing record, absent circumstances described by R.C.
    2506.03(A). The trial court’s role is to determine whether the decision “is unconstitutional,
    illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial,
    reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record,” and to “affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify
    the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from
    with instructions to enter an order, adjudication, or decision consistent with the findings or
    opinion of the court.” R.C. 2506.04.
    {¶6}    P.D. and J.D. did not pursue an action in which the affirmative defense of failure
    to exhaust administrative remedies is available.        Instead, they availed themselves of the
    administrative appeal provided by R.C. 3313.66(E). The trial court erred by dismissing the
    administrative appeal, and P.D. and J.D.’s assignment of error is sustained.
    III.
    {¶7}    P.D. and J.D.’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit
    County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Judgment reversed
    and cause remanded.
    There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
    4
    We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
    Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
    of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
    Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
    judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
    period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
    instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
    mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
    Costs taxed to Appellee.
    DONNA J. CARR
    FOR THE COURT
    TEODOSIO, J.
    CALLAHAN, J.
    CONCUR.
    APPEARANCES:
    JASON D. WALLACE and DANIEL R. BACHE, Attorneys at Law, for Appellants.
    GISELLE S. SPENCER, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 28436

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ohio 9132

Judges: Carr

Filed Date: 12/20/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021