[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Gembarski v. PartsSource, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3231.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2019-OHIO-3231 GEMBARSKI, APPELLEE, v. PARTSSOURCE, INC., APPELLANT. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Gembarski v. PartsSource, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-3231.] Civil law—Civ.R. 23(A)—In a class-certification case, when the case originates with a single named plaintiff and that plaintiff is not subject to an arbitration agreement that was entered into by unnamed putative class members, the defendant need not raise a specific argument referring or relating to arbitration in the answer—Defendant may raise an argument that relates to arbitration against putative class members at the class- certification stage of proceedings—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded. (No. 2018-0125—Submitted February 20, 2019—Decided August 14, 2019.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County, No. 2016-P-0077, 2017-Ohio-8940. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FISCHER, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, PartsSource, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment granting appellee Edward F. Gembarski’s motion to certify a class action. We accepted jurisdiction over PartsSource’s three propositions of law related to the trial court’s decision to grant class certification. We will address only the second and third propositions of law, however, as they are dispositive in this case. {¶ 2} We hold that in a class-certification case, when the case originates with a single named plaintiff and that plaintiff is not subject to an arbitration agreement that was entered into by unnamed putative class members, the defendant need not raise a specific argument referring or relating to arbitration in the defendant’s answer. In such circumstances, the defendant may raise an argument that relates to arbitration against putative class members at the class-certification stage of the proceedings. {¶ 3} As relevant to this case, PartsSource had no duty to assert arbitration as a defense in its answer because Gembarski, the only named class representative, was not subject to an arbitration agreement that had been entered into by unnamed putative class members. A defendant need not raise defenses that are related only to unnamed putative class members because those unnamed putative class members are not parties to the action prior to class certification. Thus, because arbitration was not available as a defense at the time PartsSource submitted its answer, PartsSource could not waive a right to assert arbitration at that time, as PartsSource had no such right to waive. {¶ 4} Prior to Gembarski’s motion to certify a class, PartsSource had no duty to raise ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals