Wood v. Energex Power, Inc.

2026-Ohio-176 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District · January 21, 2026 · No. CT2025-0098

Summary

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sua sponte decertification of a putative class action involving unpaid oil and gas royalties. The court held that final judgment had not been entered because damages remained undetermined, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding that class counsel and the class representative had not adequately protected the class interests. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s simultaneous roles as class representative and class counsel independently supported decertification.

Holdings

  1. A trial court may sua sponte revisit and decertify a class before final judgment when it finds that the class no longer satisfies the requirements of Ohio Civil Rule 23; a significant intervening event is not required.
  2. A default judgment that leaves damages undetermined is not a final, appealable order and does not prevent the trial court from revisiting class certification.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by decertifying the class after finding that Wood and class counsel failed to prosecute the action vigorously and failed to fairly and adequately protect the interests of absent class members.
  4. A person who simultaneously serves as class representative and class counsel cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class under Ohio Civil Rule 23(a)(4).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a trial court may sua sponte decertify a previously certified class before final judgment without finding a significant intervening event.
  2. Whether the unresolved amount of damages following default judgment meant that final judgment had not been entered, leaving the trial court authority to revisit class certification.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Wood and class counsel no longer adequately represented the class after failing to provide proposed notice forms and a class-member list.
  4. Whether Wood was an inadequate class representative because he simultaneously served as class counsel and class representative.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (25)

  • Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 2013-Ohio-3019, ¶ 25(followed)
  • Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983)(followed)
  • Paul Cheatham I.R.A. v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 2019-Ohio-3342, ¶ 38(followed)
  • Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200, 201 (1987)(followed)
  • Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982)(followed)
  • Weinman v. Fid. Capital Appreciation Fund, 354 F.3d 1246, 1261 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 140 (3d Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • McNamara v. Felderhof, 410 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litigation, 302 F.R.D. 448, 459 (N.D. Ohio 2014)(followed)
  • Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, fn. 9 (2013)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…