FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. v. AGRAWAL

No. 96413.

2014-Ohio-920

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SUDESH AGRAWAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Released and Journalized: March 13, 2014.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

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 Appellant.

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, Attorneys for Appellee.

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


JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

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.

LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR.

FootNotes


1. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sudesh Agrawal, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96413, 2011-Ohio-6474.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases