City of Cleveland v. State

974 N.E.2d 123

2012 -Ohio- 3572

City of CLEVELAND, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.STATE of Ohio, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 97679.

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

Aug. 9, 2012.

Barbara Langhenry, City of Cleveland Interim Director of Law, Gary S. Singletary, Assistant Director of Law, Cleveland, OH, for appellant.

Mike Dewine, State of Ohio Attorneys General, Pearl M. Chin, Jeannine Lesperance, Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for appellee.

Before: BLACKMON, A.J., KILBANE, J., and COONEY, J.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.

{¶ 1} The city of Cleveland (“the City”) appeals from the order of the trial court that rejected its challenge to the preemption provision of R.C. 4921.30. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that R.C. 4921.30 is not a general law because it is not part of a comprehensive, statewide legislative enactment, does not operate uniformly throughout the state, does not set forth police regulations but simply purports to limit municipal legislative power, and does not prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally. We therefore conclude that R.C. 4921.30 unconstitutionally limits a municipality's home-rule police powers, so we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the state and direct that the trial court enter summary judgment for the City.

{¶ 2} In 1981, the City adopted Cleveland Codified Ordinances (“CCO”) Chapter 677A, entitled “Tow Trucks,” adopted in 1981. Under the provisions of this chapter, every person driving a tow truck within the city of Cleveland must obtain a license from the City's Commissioner of Assessments and Licenses. It additionally contains provisions regarding the qualifications and fitness of tow truck operators, provisions regarding identifying information for vehicles, provisions barring an uninvited response to accident scenes, and rules outlining mandatory record keeping or “transport sheets” detailing, inter alia, the location and charges for each tow.

{¶ 3} In March 2003, the Ohio General Assembly adopted R.C. 4921.30, which provides:

Any person, firm, copartnership, voluntary association, joint-stock association, company, or corporation, wherever organized or incorporated, that is engaged in the towing of motor vehicles is subject to regulation by the public utilities commission as a for-hire motor carrier under this chapter. Such an entity is not subject to any ordinance, rule, or resolution of a municipal corporation, county, or township that provides for the licensing, registering, or regulation of entities that tow motor vehicles.

{¶ 4} Also in March 2003, the Ohio General Assembly rescinded the exclusion set forth in R.C. 4921.02(A)(8), and therefore included companies “[e]ngaged in the towing of disabled or wrecked motor vehicles” within the definition of a “[m]otor transportation company.”

{¶ 5} This legislation, in effect, added tow trucks to the state's PUCO regulation of transportation for-hire motor carriers, and preempted local laws pertaining to the licensing, registering, or regulation of entities that tow motor vehicles regulation.

{¶ 6} CCO 677A remained in effect. The City maintained that the state statute unconstitutionally interfered with its home-rule authority, and in reliance upon CCO 677A, impounded tow trucks that did not meet the City's licensing requirements. See Rodriguez v. Cleveland, 619 F.Supp.2d 461 (N.D.Ohio 2009).¹

{¶ 7} On March 19, 2009, the City filed a declaratory judgment against the state of Ohio, seeking determinations that (1) R.C. 4921.30 is not a “general law,” and (2) that R.C. 4921.30 violates the City's power of local self-government to regulate the towing of motor vehicles. In its answer, the state denied that the City is entitled to declaratory relief, and the parties subsequently filed dispositive motions.

{¶ 8} In its motion for summary judgment, the City maintained that the state had simply added tow trucks to its PUCO scheme of regulating motor transportation companies. R.C. 4921.30 is not part of a comprehensive legislative enactment for tow truck operators, but rather, simply purports to abolish all local regulation. Moreover, the preemption language is at odds with the local regulatory authority over motor transportation companies recognized in R.C. 4921.25 that permits local subdivisions to “make reasonable local police regulations relating to motor transportation companies * * * not inconsistent with the authority of the PUCO.”

{¶ 9} In opposition, the state noted that the Ohio General Assembly has given the PUCO authority to supervise and regulate “motor transportation companies” since 1923, and this term has included tow trucks since 2003. Applying the analytic framework set forth in Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963, the state argued that R.C. 4921.30 does not simply limit the legislative power of cities, but is part of a comprehensive statewide scheme of regulations. The state further argued that R.C. 4921.30 operates uniformly across the state and prevents “conflicting patchwork regulation by the cities.” It additionally argued that R.C. 4921.30 is part of a safety regulatory scheme that adopts and enhances safety regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and that it prescribes a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.

{¶ 10} The state additionally noted that R.C. 4921.30 preempts licensing, registering, and regulation of entities that tow motor vehicles, but does not preempt all local authority over tow trucks and allows municipalities to exercise local police powers over matters outside the jurisdiction of the PUCO.

{¶ 11} On November 17, 2011, the trial court concluded that R.C. 4921.30 is a valid general law that does not unconstitutionally infringe upon the City's home-rule authority and granted the state's motion for summary judgment.

{¶ 12} The City now appeals. For its sole assignment of error, the City argues that the trial court erred in concluding that R.C. 4921.30 is a general law and that its preemption provision does not violate municipal home-rule authority.

{¶ 13} With regard to procedure, we note that appellate review of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

{¶ 14} The moving party carries the initial burden of providing specific facts that demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be granted, a court must determine:

(1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.

{¶ 15} Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the nonmoving party must produce competent evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Dresher at 288, 662 N.E.2d 264. In responding to a motion for summary judgment, a nonmoving party may not rest on “unsupported allegations in the pleadings.” Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978). Rather, Civ.R. 56 requires a nonmoving party to respond with competent evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.

{¶ 16} We additionally note that statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-2462, 909 N.E.2d 1254, ¶ 41. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

{¶ 17} Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, the home-rule amendment, gives municipalities the “authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.”

{¶ 18} As explained in Am. Fin. Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170, 2006-Ohio-6043, 858 N.E.2d 776:

[T]he constitutional provision as adopted gave municipalities the exclusive power to govern themselves, as well as additional power to enact local health and safety measures not in conflict with general laws, [but] “exclusive state power was retained in those areas where a municipality would in no way be affected or where state dominance seemed to be required.” (Emphasis sic.)

Id. at ¶ 27, quoting Vaubel, Municipal Home Rule in Ohio, at 1107–1108 (1978).

{¶ 19} In Canton, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963, at ¶ 9, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth a three-part test for evaluating conflicts under the home-rule amendment. Pursuant to that test, a state statute takes precedence over a municipal ordinance and does not unconstitutionally infringe upon municipal home-rule authority when: (1) the ordinance is in conflict with the statute; (2) the ordinance is an exercise of the police power, rather than of local self-government; and (3) the statute is a general law. Where the statute fails to meet all of these conditions, it is not a general law, and, as such, it must yield to the municipal ordinance in question. Id. at 151, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963.

{¶ 20} In this matter, the City alleged in its complaint and in its motion for summary judgment that R.C. 4921.30 is not a “general law,” and therefore, that is the focus of our analysis herein.

{¶ 21} “A general law has been described as one which promotes statewide uniformity.” Ohio Assn. of Private Detective Agencies, Inc. v. N. Olmsted, 65 Ohio St.3d 242, 244, 602 N.E.2d 1147 (1992). “Once a matter has become of such general interest that it is necessary to make it subject to statewide control as to require uniform statewide regulation, the municipality can no longer legislate in...