The class action claims presented as a challenge to the permanent escheat provisions enacted this past term by Ohio HB 96 have been reasserted in federal court. For those who have not been closely following, these are the provisions enacted by Ohio allowing the state to assume title to all unclaimed property held by the state since January 1, 2016 as of January 1, 2026 (an estimated $1.7 Billion); and thereafter any property that has been escheated for 10 years, in order to fund the proposed new suburban stadium for the Cleveland Browns football team. (See press coverage: here, here, and here)
On October 2, 2025, the proposed class action plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Department. The case is captioned Bleick, et al., v. Maxfield, Hardy, Sprague, and Bledsoe, 25-cv-01140. Specifically, the complaint alleges:
- Violation of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution
- Violation of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution
- Violation of the OH State Constitution’s Takings Clause under Article I, Section 19
- Violation of the OH State Constitution’s Single Subject Rule under Article II, Section 15(d)
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Abuse of Legislative Authority; and
- Seeking a Declaratory Judgment
These claims largely mirror those presented in the state action filed in the Franklin County Ohio Court of Common Pleas on July 7, 2025. The state case was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff, without prejudice, on October 1, 2025.
Prior to dismissal, Defendants had filed two dispositive motions in the state action: a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike the proposed class; and Plaintiffs’ response to each of these motions was pending.
In the newly commenced federal action, the Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss; on October 6, 2025. However, the motion is heavily procedural. It is predicated on a lack of jurisdiction, and appears to presume that the state case has not been withdrawn as it focuses its points on the doctrine of abstention governing conflict of law considerations between the courts.
Based on the filing timestamps, Defendant’s motion to dismiss appears to advance misplaced arguments, and perhaps was made based on a delay in court notices of the electronic filings; or delays in service. Nevertheless, given the tone and tenor of the state’s position in its motion, a substantive motion to dismiss is anticipated.