By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Kathryn Brown, and Brett Bohan
Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 22, 2026, in Hilton v. City of Lorain, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4114 (Ohio Oct. 22, 2026), the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously reversed an intermediate appellate decision that had faulted a trial court for denying class certification in a “confusing and seemingly contradictory” opinion. Id. ¶ 7. The trial court had found two of the seven certification prerequisites under Ohio Civil Rule 23 lacking but went on to find the other five were satisfied. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that addressing every requirement, rather than stopping after finding one requirement is not met, is consistent with the “rigorous analysis” that class certification demands. Id. ¶ 1.
For defendants facing class claims under Ohio law, the decision clarifies that a well-reasoned denial of certification will not be undone on appeal because the trial court addressed every requirement for class certification.
Case Background
Appellees brought a putative class action against the City of Lorain and related entities in Ohio state court. Id. ¶ 2. They claimed that the city had charged unlawful rates and fees for water and wastewater services. Id. Appellees moved to certify a class of “[a]ll ratepayers who were charged water and sanitary sewer rates, fees and charges by the City of Lorain since May 7, 2012.” Id.
Under Ohio Civil Rule 23, a class may be certified only if seven prerequisites are met: (1) an identifiable class with an unambiguous definition; (2) named representatives who belong to the class; (3) numerosity; (4) common questions of law or fact; (5) typicality; (6) adequate representation; and (7) satisfaction of one of the Rule 23(B) categories. Id. ¶ 3. Appellees relied on Rule 23(B)(3), which requires common questions to predominate and a class action to be the superior method of resolving the disputes. Id. ¶ 5.
The Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denied certification on two grounds. Id. ¶ 4. First, the court concluded that the proposed class was neither identifiable nor clearly defined. Id. Specifically, it was unclear whether the class covered everyone who had been charged fees or only those who paid them, and appellees had offered no means of identifying class members “going back from over a decade earlier.” Id. (emphasis in original). Second, the court found predominance and superiority lacking, since the court would have to determine, member by member, whether each person paid an unlawful charge and in what amount. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. The trial court nonetheless addressed the remaining five requirements for class certification and found that they had all been satisfied. Id. ¶ 7.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed. Id. The court reasoned that the trial court could not logically find the class undefined while simultaneously finding that appellees belonged to it, that it was numerous, and that common, typical claims existed among members. Id. The court held that these “seemingly contradictory findings” amounted to an abuse of discretion and remanded to the trial court. Id. The city appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Id. ¶ 8.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s Opinion
The Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously reversed the appellate court’s ruling. Id. ¶ 19. The court reaffirmed that a trial court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” of a class certification motion, that a plaintiff’s failure on any single requirement defeats certification, and that a trial court’s certification ruling stands unless the court abused its discretion. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. The court also stressed that appellate courts should be especially cautious before overturning a trial court decision that denied class certification. Id. ¶ 11.
The city argued that the trial court’s decision was not contradictory and that the court had simply assumed, for the sake of argument when addressing the remaining requirements, that the class had been defined properly. Id. ¶ 12. The city warned that requiring the trial court to end its analysis once it found one element unsatisfied could lead to piecemeal litigation. Id. The trial court “would have to determine, one at a time, whether each of the other six requirements had been met; this process could result in six appeals and six remands.” Id. Appellees countered that an analysis that is confusing and internally inconsistent cannot be “rigorous” for purposes of satisfying Ohio law. Id. ¶ 13.
The Supreme Court of Ohio sided with the city. Id. ¶ 14. Although the trial court’s decision could have been clearer, it included sufficient language to show that the trial court had addressed the remaining five requirements of the class certification analysis as if the two unsatisfied requirements had been satisfied. Id. ¶ 15. The Supreme Court further explained that judicial economy favors resolving all seven requirements in a single ruling whenever possible. Id. ¶ 16. It cautioned, however, that there may be cases in which the failure of one requirement prevents a court from meaningfully evaluating the other six requirements. Id.
The Supreme Court of Ohio remanded the case to the Ninth District Court of Appeals to address the appellees’ remaining assignments of error in the trial court’s ruling.
Implications For Companies
The Hilton decision is required reading for businesses defending class actions under Ohio law. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s unanimous ruling establishes that a trial court does not jeopardize a denial of class certification by analyzing every Rule 23 prerequisite, even after it concludes that one requirement has not been satisfied. Because of the deference owed to trial courts that decline to certify a class, class action defendants should build a thorough record on each Rule 23 requirement so that the trial court may issue a complete, well-supported decision that gives appellate courts multiple independent grounds on which to affirm.
Additionally, although not the focus of the opinion, the Hilton decision illustrates how, in cases involving long look-back periods and individualized damages questions, class-definition and predominance challenges can defeat certification. Where determining class membership or liability would require account-by-account review, those issues can be decisive.