Opinion
2023-00449AD
10-31-2023
VALDEZ STRAUGHTER Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/28/24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
{¶1} This matter is before the deputy clerk for an R.C. 2743.10 administrative determination. The deputy clerk determines that plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $14.11 against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC").
Background.
{¶2} Plaintiff Valdez Straughter obtained a $1,000.00 judgment against ODRC on May 10, 2023. See State ex rel. Straughter v. ODRC, ___Ohio St.3d.___, 2023-Ohio-1543, ___N.E.3d.___. That judgment did not address interest.
{¶3} That judgment had not been paid by June 30, 2023, when this case was filed. Plaintiff sued to recover the principal amount of the judgment, interest on the judgment, and $500.00 for emotional distress. He sued the Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("DAS"), rather than ODRC.
{¶4} DAS filed an investigation report supported by an affidavit from in house counsel at ODRC swearing that the principal amount of the judgment was paid on August 21, 2023. Plaintiff responded and did not dispute payment of the principal amount of the judgment on August 21, 2023.
Analysis
{¶5} Plaintiffs claim for the principal amount of the judgment is moot because ODRC has voluntarily paid that amount. City of Grove City v. Clark, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1369, 2002-Ohio-4549, ¶ 14.
{¶6} Plaintiffs claim for emotional injury fails as a matter of law. Such damages are not available on this type of claim because he alleges no physical injury, involvement in an accident, or fear of physical harm. Bayt v. Kent State Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2007-02491 -AD, 2008-Ohio-2634, ¶ 7. Further, plaintiff has submitted no evidence proving that he suffered emotional injury or establishing the monetary value he places on it.
{¶7} Plaintiffs claim for interest is valid. However, R.C. 1343.03(A) entitles a judgment creditor to interest at the rate set by R.C. 5703.47 when the judgment does not specify the rate of interest. Plaintiffs judgment did not address interest, making R.C. 1343.03 and R.C. 5703.47 applicable. The rate set by R.C. 5703.47 was 5% per annum at the time involved here. Ohio Department of Taxation, In the matter of the Determination of the Interest Rates pursuant to Section 5703.47 of the Ohio Revised Code, https://tax.ohio.gov/static/ohio_individual/individual/cy2023adminjournalentry.pdf (accessed October 19, 2023). That would result in a plaintiffs judgment accruing interest at the rate of $50.00 a year or $.1369 a day. One hundred three (103) days elapsed between the entry of plaintiffs judgment and ODRC paying that judgment. That entitles plaintiff to $14.1095 in interest. Rounding that to the nearest cent, plaintiff is entitled to $14.11.
{¶8} Plaintiffs claim is not defeated by the fact that he sued DAS rather than ODRC. The "only defendant in an original action in the Court of Claims is the State of Ohio itself," ODRC is plainly a state entity, and a plaintiffs failure to name the correct state agency or department does not bar its claim. Beamer v. State, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 82AP-654, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 15206, at *4 (May 12, 1983); John P. Novatny Elec. Co. v. State, 46 Ohio App.2d 255, 258, 349 N.E.2d 328 (10th Dist. 1975). The court can use its authority under R.C. 2743.19(A) to render judgment against the appropriate state entity.
{¶9} ODRC would not be prejudiced by entering judgment against it because it had actual notice of the case and was heard. Its actual notice is established by the fact that its in-house counsel submitted affidavit testimony. Its opportunity to be heard is established by the contents of that affidavit and the fact that ODRC's statutory counsel, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, submitted arguments in this case.
{¶10} The court sua sponte changes the caption of this case to substitute ODRC for DAS as the defendant. The court further fixes liability on ODRC pursuant to R.C. 2743.19(A).
ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
{¶11} Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $14.11 against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). Court costs are assessed against ODRC.