Breach of Contract Cases

Summary judgment breach of contract, collateral estoppel actually and directly litigated prior action determination by court of competent jurisdiction. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on its claim that appellants breach the parties' contractual agreement. Applicable to this matter is collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which prevents relitigation of an issue that has been actually and necessarily litigated and determined in a prior action. Collateral estoppel applies when three requirements are met: the fact or issue (1) was actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party in privity with a party to the prior action. Appellants' adversarial proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court resulted in the specific finding that appellee did not breach the parties' contractual agreement. In the prior action, the court determined that appellants failed to provide certain material that appellee requested to complete the tasks at hand and, that such failure was a breach of the contract by appellant. Additionally, there is no dispute that the parties here were the identical parties in the prior action. Further, neither parties dispute that a court of competent jurisdiction entered a final judgment on the merits of the claim. Because the instant issue, between the same parties, was decided, when appellants were fully represented and, when appellants had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue, collateral estoppel applies. We conclude that the breach-of- contract issue was already decided in the Bankruptcy Court. As such, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CIVIL - Motion to Dismiss Civ.R. 12(B)(6) Civ.R. 12(B)(1) R.C. Chapter 4117 R.C. 4117.03 grievance procedure jurisdiction of the Court State Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve unfair labor practices claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 do not fall under exclusive jurisdiction of SERB Standing to bring claim Collective Bargaining Agreement controls grievance procedure Union and employer, not Union members individually, are parties to CBA Right to present grievance without Union involvement terminated at arbitration step under CBA Ohio Adm.Code 4117-1-01(B) First Amendment Arbitration is one of those "more traditional collective bargaining activities between union and employer CBA may create exclusive arbitration representation clause preventing individuals from pursuing their own arbitration with their own counsel and without union involvement R.C. 4117.09(B)(1).