Moore v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm

In Moore v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm. (1983), 11 Ohio App. 3d 273, 11 Ohio B. 453, 465 N.E.2d 482, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of an administrative appeal for lack of proper or necessary parties. In Moore, the appellant appealed a Cleveland Civil Service Commission order that affirmed his dismissal as a city school bus driver. His notice of appeal named as appellees the city's board of education (which originally terminated his employment) and the Civil Service Commission. The board of education filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the reviewing court lacked jurisdiction because appellant had failed to name the school board's business manager as a necessary and proper party. The trial court granted the board of education's motion to dismiss. The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there are no procedural requirements beyond the perfection of the appeal with which an appellant must comply to avoid dismissal. The Court stated: Under R.C. 2505.04, the only jurisdictional requirement is the filing of the notice of appeal. R.C. 2505.05 then sets out what information must be designated in the notice of appeal. These, however, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and a failure to comply with them does not defeat an appeal, as the notice of appeal may be amended "for good cause shown." Moreover, R.C. 2505.05 has universally been liberally construed so as not to deny an appeal on technical grounds. Thus, if the notice of appeal substantially informs all parties of the order and tribunal from which the appeal is taken and to what court the appeal is taken, so that no parties are prejudiced, then it is sufficient notice for R.C. 2505.05. Moore, at 275-276. The court further concluded that appellant's notice of appeal fully complied with the requirements of R.C. 2505.04, was timely filed, and the parties properly served. "Pursuant to R.C. 2505.04, nothing further was procedurally required of appellant in the perfection of his appeal." Id. at 276.