The developers of a Sheetz service station can pursue a second lawsuit against the city of Centerville for thwarting its plans to open a new store near an exit ramp to Interstate 675, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

Litigation between Sheetz and Centerville has moved to federal court, where a judge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio paused the lawsuit. The judge asked the Supreme Court to decide whether, under Ohio law, Sheetz could file a separate lawsuit seeking damages from the city after the business successfully appealed the denial of its site plan.

In a unanimous opinion , Justice Joseph T. Deters explained the Court rejected the city’s argument that Sheetz had to make its claims for damages and a declaratory judgment when it appealed the city’s plan rejection. Justice Deters wrote that Ohio law does not permit a party to seek damages or declaratory relief in an administrative appeal. The federal court can hear the lawsuit, the Court concluded.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Jennifer Brunner, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Deters’ opinion. Sixth District Court of Appeals Judge Christine Mayle, sitting for Justice R. Patrick DeWine, also joined the opinion.

Neighbors Oppose Service Station
In 2022, Sheetz and its partners, Morse Road Development and Hemmert Far Hills Properties, acquired the site of a former restaurant on Far Hills Avenue. Sheetz, a national chain, proposed to build its traditional combined gas station, convenience store, and drive-through restaurant on the property.

The Centerville Planning Commission unanimously approved the plan in 2023. However, neighboring property owners Graceworks Lutheran Services, doing business as Bethany Lutheran Village, and Epiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church, along with a Centerville resident, opposed the development. They appealed the planning commission’s decision to Centerville City Council. The city council reversed the planning commission’s approval of the Sheetz station.

Two Lawsuits Filed in Response to City Council’s Action
Under the provisions of R.C. Chapter 2506, Sheetz filed an administrative appeal with the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in November 2023.

A couple months later, Sheetz filed a separate lawsuit that named as defendants Centerville, Epiphany, Bethany Village, and two individuals who allegedly were involved in the opposition to Sheetz’s development plans. In this second lawsuit, Sheetz was seeking monetary damages and declaratory relief . Although Sheetz filed the second lawsuit in a state common pleas court, the city successfully transferred it to a federal district court.

Sheetz prevailed in the administrative appeal. The common pleas court determined that the city council had taken improper legislative action when overturning the planning commission’s decision. After being notified of the common pleas court decision of the administrative appeal, the federal court, where the second lawsuit was pending, issued an order requiring the parties to show whether the case could continue in the aftermath of the common pleas court’s decision. The federal court asked the parties to address whether the lawsuit was no longer viable under the doctrine of res judicata, which, if certain conditions are fulfilled, prevents a second lawsuit based on the same facts.

Sheetz argued that res judicata did not bar its second lawsuit. According to Sheetz, Ohio courts have no authority to award damages or declaratory relief as part of an administrative appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506. So, Sheetz contended, it had to bring its claims for damages and declaratory relief in a second lawsuit rather than in its administrative appeal. Res judicata does not apply under those circumstances, Sheetz explained. Thus, it argued, the common pleas court’s decision in the administrative appeal did not prevent Sheetz from continuing to litigate its second lawsuit.

The federal court determined there were conflicting decisions from state and federal appeals courts on the issue, and the judge asked the Supreme Court to determine whether Sheetz’s second lawsuit was barred by res judicata under Ohio law. The Court agreed to answer the question.

Supreme Court Analyzed Rules for Multiple Lawsuits
Justice Deters explained that the principle of res judicata embraces two related concepts: “claims preclusion and issue preclusion.” Claims preclusion prevents a party from raising claims in a subsequent lawsuit that were settled or could have been addressed in an earlier lawsuit between the same parties, provided the earlier lawsuit resulted in a valid final judgment. Issue preclusion applies when a party seeks a second attempt to challenge a fact or point already decided by a court in an earlier lawsuit.

Claims preclusion is at issue in this dispute, the opinion stated, because the federal court’s question asks whether Sheetz was required to raise all its claims against Centerville, including damages and a declaratory judgment, when it filed its first lawsuit, the administrative appeal.

Sheetz argued that res judicata does not apply, and it can file a second lawsuit. The opinion stated that Centerville’s argument “sidestepped” the debate about whether Sheetz could or should have raised its damages and declaratory relief claims in the administrative appeal. Instead, Centerville pointed to the Court’s holding in its 1995 Grava v. Parkman Twp. decision, which found that a valid final judgment bars “all subsequent actions based on any claims” arising out of the first lawsuit.

Because the parties did not dispute that all of Sheetz’s claims arose out of the city council’s rejection of the planning commission’s approval, Centerville maintained that the company’s second lawsuit was barred. Epiphany, which is also named in the second lawsuit, took a different approach, arguing that Sheetz could have raised its additional claims in the administrative appeal.

The Court explained that while the general rule is that a plaintiff must present every claim for relief in its first action against a defendant or be forever barred from asserting it, there are limits to the rule. For res judicata to apply, “a claim must be of the sort that the plaintiff might have brought in the first action,” the Court stated.

The Court stated an administrative appeal is a “final review of an administrative action” and allows for limited relief. The common pleas court in the administrative appeal could only affirm, reverse, or take action on the issue that was decided by the government agency, which was the rejection of the planning commission’s decision. The Court stated that under its 1993 Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals decision, an administrative appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506 cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other forms of relief, such as damages or declaratory judgment.

Because of the formal barrier that prevented Sheetz from raising its other claims against the city and the opponent in the administrative appeal, the second lawsuit was not barred, the opinion stated.

Centerville also argued that Sheetz had to choose between two different approaches to seek a remedy from the city, and that it chose the path that barred it from bringing its claims for damages and declaratory relief. The Court replied that Ohio law does not treat the two approaches as mutually exclusive, and that a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment can be sought in addition to or instead of an administrative appeal. Sheetz’s use of two lawsuits is permitted by Ohio law, the Court concluded.

2025-0753. Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3531.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.