Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Agrawal

[Cite as Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Agrawal, 2014-Ohio-920.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

No. 96413

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.

SUDESH AGRAWAL

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

JUDGMENT:

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-536588

BEFORE: Celebrezze, P.J., Jones, J., and E.A. Gallagher, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 13, 2014 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Irene C. Keyse-Walker

Tucker Ellis, L.L.P.

950 Main Avenue

Suite 1100

Cleveland, Ohio 44113-7213

Brett K. Bacon

Gregory R. Farkas

Colleen C. Murnane

Frantz Ward, L.L.P.

127 Public Square

25th Floor

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1999

Thomas M. Byrne

Stacey M. Mohr

Valerie S. Sanders

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, L.L.P.

999 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996

Loren L. Alikhan

Jonathan Hacker

O’Melveny & Myers, L.L.P.

1625 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Anand N. Misra

The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C.

3659 Green Road

Suite 100

Beachwood, Ohio 44122

Robert S. Belovich

9100 South Hills Boulevard

Suite 300

Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.: {¶1} This cause is before us on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for further review of our decision released December 15, 2011.1 {¶2} On review of appellant Ford Motor Credit Company’s proposition of law that [c]laims for breach of contract, fraud, and nondisclosure involving a standardized contract cannot be certified as a class action when individualized inquiries are necessary to determine (a) whether each claimant’s contract was actually violated or misrepresented, and (b) whether each claimant suffered economic harm as a result, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed our decision based on their recent holding in Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, 999 N.E.2d 614.

{¶3} We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court granting class certification and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the holding in Cullen.

{¶4} Judgment reversed and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sudesh Agrawal, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96413, 2011-Ohio-6474. FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR