We reported last week that the Ohio Supreme Court issued a 5-2 decision in Stammco v. United Telephone Company of Ohio, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3019, reinstating the trial court’s order overruling plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class and rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed amended class definition, effectively decertifying the plaintiffs’ proposed class action lawsuit.
On July 24, 2013, Stammco and the other plaintiff-appellees filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its decertification decision and to remand (again) to the trial court to reconsider class certification. In their motion, plaintiffs point out several findings of the Court that plaintiffs believe to be in error.
For example, plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s decision was in error because it unconstitutionally decided issues of fact and improperly based its rejection of the amended class definition on the merits of the claims at issue. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that the Court’s decision was “based on a finding that the proposed class cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of Civ. R. 23(B)(3), even though Plaintiffs sought certification under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) AND . . . the question of predominance was neither briefed, nor decided as an issue before the appellate court below.” (Motion, at 2.)
Appellant United Telephone Company of Ohio’s memorandum in response is due within 10 days.
