A state appellate court in Ohio has dismissed the appeal of the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA), which sought to overturn a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court.
In so finding, the court deemed that the OHSAA’s appeal of the preliminary injunction, which allowed a student athlete to compete on a girls’ basketball team in her senior year even though the OHSAA deemed her ineligible for violating its transfer rules, was moot because she had graduated.
However, the appellate court did vacate that part of the injunction that prohibited the OHSAA from taking any action against the school, where the girl competed, after legal questions around the injunction were resolved.
The controversy centered on Alexxus Paige, and the decision of her mother to move the family’s home in the Cincinnati Public School District to an apartment in the Winton Woods School District. As a result of the move, Paige, who had attended Withrow High School for her freshman, sophomore, and junior years, enrolled at Winton Woods High School for her senior year. Both schools are members of the OHSAA.
OHSAA Bylaw 4-7-2 provides that a student who transfers from one school to another after the fifth day of her ninth grade year cannot play sports at the new school for one year from the date of enrollment unless one of the 11 exceptions applies. Exception One provides that if, as a result of a bona fide legal change of residence made by both parents, the student is compelled to transfer from one public school district to another public school district, the Commissioner’s Office may restore athletic eligibility at the new school provided the Commissioner’s Office is satisfied that the transfer was not athletically motivated.
Dissatisfied with the mother’s argument, OHSAA Associate Commissioner Dr. Deborah Moore notified Winton Woods by letter that the OHSAA had determined that Paige had not met the exception because her transfer had not been compelled by a change of residence, but had been motivated by a desire to play basketball at Winton Woods. Thus, the OHSAA concluded that under Bylaw 4-7-2, Paige was ineligible to participate in athletics at Winton Woods during her senior year. Paige’s mother appealed the commissioner’s determination to the OHSAA Appeals Panel. Following a hearing, the Panel affirmed the commissioner’s ruling.
On December 5, 2012, Paige sued in the common pleas court seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the OHSAA from enforcing transfer Bylaw 4-7-2 against her. The trial court held a hearing on December 7, 2012, and granted her request. It restrained the OHSAA from enforcing the bylaw against Paige and from taking any adverse action against Paige or nonparty Winton Woods based upon the OHSAA’s determination that Paige was ineligible to participate in athletics during her senior year at Winton Woods.
The OHSAA appealed. Paige moved to dismiss the appeal.
“Because we conclude that no actual controversy currently exists between the OHSAA and Paige, we grant her motion to dismiss the appeal as moot,” held the appeals court.
Elaborating, the appeals court noted that “Ohio courts have held that when an individual graduates from high school or no longer has an interest in participating in interscholastic athletic activity, an action to participate in such activity is deemed moot. See Dankoff v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn., 9th Dist. No. 24076, 2008-Ohio-4559.”
Sanctioning a School After the Fact
It added, “however, that the case as a whole is not moot because the trial court’s injunction also prohibited the OHSAA from taking any adverse action against Paige or Winton Woods for permitting Paige’s participation in athletics. According to OHSAA Bylaw 11-1-4, the OHSAA may sanction member schools and their athletes in the event an ineligible student athlete participates in violation of the OHSAA eligibility rules, but in accordance with an injunction or restraining order which is later vacated, stayed, reversed, or finally determined to have been unjustified. Those sanctions include: striking individual and team records and performances, forfeiting victories, returning trophies and rewards, and returning certain funding.
“The OHSAA argues that a live controversy exists because it has an interest in having the injunction invalidated and set aside, so that it can exercise its possible discretion to impose the penalties under Bylaw 11-1-4 upon Winton Woods … .
“Notably in this case, Winton Woods was never made a party in the trial court, nor was it made a party to this appeal. Further, Winton Woods has never moved to intervene in this case, and has asserted no interest in this matter. Thus, there is no justiciable controversy or pending action between the OHSAA and Winton Woods concerning the validity or the enforcement of the trial court’s preliminary injunction. Thus, we have no authority to adjudicate any potential dispute between the OHSAA and Winton Woods over the sanctions outlined in Bylaw 11-1-4. As a result, any actions the OHSAA may take against Winton Woods in the future are irrelevant in determining whether a live controversy currently exists between Paige and the OHSAA. See Johnson v. Florida High Sch. Activities Ass’n., 102 F.3d 1172, 1173 (11th Cir.1997); Jordan v. Indiana High School Athletic Assn., 16 F.3d 785, 787-88 (7th Cir.1994); McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Assn., 119 F.3d 453, 458, 466 (6th Cir.1997) (Nelson-Moore, J., dissenting).
“(B)ecause Winton Woods is not even a nominal, much less an active party to this lawsuit, the trial court lacked the authority to issue the preliminary injunction regarding Winton Woods without prior notice and hearing from the school district,” the appeals court added. “We, therefore, vacate that portion of the preliminary injunction that prohibits the OHSAA from taking any action against Winton Woods.
“We recognize that our resolution of the OHSAA’s appeal conflicts with the opinion of the Second District Court of Appeals in Ulliman v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn., 184 Ohio App. 3d 52, 2009-Ohio-3756, 919 N.E.2d 763 (2d Dist.). We, therefore, certify to the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, the following issue for review and final determination: Where an injunction is issued at the request of a student, which permits the student to participate in interscholastic athletics despite the Ohio High School Athletic Association’s determination of ineligibility, under its Bylaw 4-7-2, Exception One, and prohibits the OHSAA from invoking its right to sanction a member school, does a live controversy still exist when: (1) the student is no longer participating in high school athletics; (2) the member school where the student participated is not a party to the appeal; and (3) the student is no longer interested in pursuing the matter on appeal?”
Alexxus M. Paige v. Ohio High School Athletic Association; CT. App. Ohio, 1st. App. Dist., Hamilton Co.; Appeal NO. C-130024, 2013-Ohio-4713; 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4935
Attorneys of Record: (for Plaintiff-Appellee) Chris Wiest ALL, PLLC, James Bogen and Christopher Wiest,. (for Defendant-Appellant) Fruend Freeze & Arnold, Thomas B. Bruns, Gordon D. Arnold and Lucinda Shirooni.
