COLUMBUS, Ohio (Legal Newsline) - A plaintiff who won a lawsuit but was awarded zero damages isn’t entitled to attorney fees under Ohio’s consumer protection statute, the state’s highest court ruled.
The plaintiff must win money or injunctive relief to be considered the “prevailing party” under the law, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4:3 decision issued on Dec. 9. Otherwise, the standard rule applies under which each side bears its own legal costs.
Three justices dissented, saying the legislature never defined “prevailing party” but common sense dictates it is whoever proves the other side broke the law.
Niv Goomai and Bar Hajb sued H&E Enterprises and Avi Ohad for violating a contract to renovate a property in Cincinnati. The jury found H&E violated the contract and awarded $30,604 in damages.
The jury also found H&E and Ohad had violated the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act but awarded nothing in damages on that claim.
Goomai filed a motion for attorney fees but the court denied it, ruling they had won nothing under the statute that provided for fees. No law provides for fees in contract disputes. The First District Court of Appeals reversed, and H&E appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.
“This conclusion is required by the statute and is consistent with the well-established notion that the plaintiff must secure some relief that changes the legal relationship of the parties to be a prevailing party,” wrote Justice R. Patrick DeWine for the majority. “A plaintiff must prevail by obtaining actual damages or equitable relief.”
Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented, joined by Justices Michael Donnelly and Melody Stewart.
The majority’s interpretation “is nonsensical,” she wrote. “It is reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty’s dialogue with Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’ ”
Several federal courts have held that plaintiffs in no-damages cases can still win attorney fees, she wrote.
“We are not the legislature,” she concluded. “Our review should conform to the law and not vice versa. If the legislature does not agree with our review, then it—rather than this court—should `right the ship’ according to its policy views.”