Court Rulings

Relators-appellants failed to state a claim for a writ of mandamus against Respondent-appellee, a private corporation, because an action for a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private corporation. In addition, Relators did not establish that they otherwise lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Judgment affirmed.

REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification

In this judicial review of an administrative decision, the trial court reversed the civil service commission's decision to reinstate a police officer to his position upon finding that the commission's reversal of the police department's termination of the employee was arbitrary and capricious. The employee has appealed. Having determined that the findings of the civil service commission were supported by substantial and material evidence but that its ultimate decision was arbitrary and capricious, we affirm the judgment of the trial court reversing the commission's decision.

RECLASSIFICATION – CIVIL SERVICE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the Cincinnati Civil Service Commission, which confirmed the conclusion of a job classification study, where the evidence submitted supported the study's conclusion that a city employee's job duties did not rise above the employee's current job classification.

Appeal from Department of Commerce Decisions under Chapter 96 Independent Contractor Status

The plaintiff appealed from a judgement of the Superior Court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred because there lacks identity of the issues between this action and the earlier partition action at which, according to the hearing justice, plaintiff should have raised the issue that plaintiff sought to litigate: whether sufficient grounds existed to trigger a termination provision in its lease. In addition, plaintiff argued that the issue it sought to litigate was not justiciable in the earlier partition action. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the Supreme Court held that the hearing justice properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis of res judicata. In doing so, the Court held that the issue that plaintiff sought to litigate was justiciable in the earlier partition action and that there existed identity of issues between the present litigation and the earlier action. Specifically, the Court opined that, under the transactional rule, the issue that plaintiff sought to litigate arose from the same series of transactions that could have been properly raised in the earlier partition action. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

The plaintiff insurance companies sought a declaratory judgment to deter- mine the rights and obligations of the parties under certain policies that the plaintiffs and certain of the defendant insurance companies had issued to the defendant manufacturer R Co. with respect to underlying lawsuits against R Co. concerning environmental contamination at vari- ous locations, principally in California, dating back to the 1940s. The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that they had no duty to defend or to indemnify R Co. in connection with the underlying claims and that, if the trial court found that they were obligated to defend or to indemnify R Co., they were entitled to contribution from the defendant primary, umbrella and excess insurers. The plaintiff insurance compa- nies included C Co., L Co., and certain London market insurers. The defendants included secondary insurers E Co., S Co., F Co., T Co. and U Co., which had issued certain excess policies to R Co. between 1982 and 1986. Prior to this litigation, the substantive issues of which are governed by California law, R Co. settled certain of its coverage claims with the defendant A Co., the successor in interest to I Co., which had issued to R Co. two primary policies that were in effect between 1959 and 1971. The plaintiffs, which had issued policies to R Co. that were in excess to the 1959–1971 policies, claimed that R Co. had settled with A Co. for less than the total amount of coverage under the 1959–1971 I Co. policies and, thus, R Co. did not fully exhaust its coverage under those policies. The trial court stayed the plaintiffs' contribution claims and bifurcated the proceedings, the first phase of which was limited to the question of when the obligations, if any, of the excess insurers arose in light of the limits of the underlying primary policy or policies. Thereafter, C Co. and several other plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which they claimed that the I Co. primary policies fi