![[image]](https://WFMJ.images.worldnow.com/images/26520658_G.jpeg)
Calling a lawsuit “misguided,” state officials have asked a judge to dismiss a legal challenge against Ohio's plan to use unclaimed funds for the Cleveland Browns' proposed stadium.
State Treasurer Robert Sprague, Commerce Director Sheryl Maxfield, and Unclaimed Funds Superintendent Akil Hardy have filed two opposing motions in the case, arguing that the claims of the plaintiffs are too different to be considered a single group.
The lawsuit was filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court by three Ohio residents who claim the state is unconstitutionally taking their private property. A key part of their complaint is that the new law, H.B. 96, would use more than $1 billion in unclaimed funds to help pay for new sports facilities, including the Browns' stadium project in Brook Park.
The defendants have filed a motion to strike the class allegations, stating that the lawsuit does not meet the legal criteria to proceed as a class action. They argue that each person’s claim to unclaimed funds is unique and would require an individual inquiry to determine the facts, such as when their funds were deposited or whether they have already been notified.
They also point out that the proposed group includes people whose funds are not yet at risk of being transferred to the state, making the lawsuit premature for some.
The state's motion also highlights a potential conflict with federal law, noting that some unclaimed funds originally came from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and may be subject to different rules. This, they argue, further shows that the claims are not uniform across the group.
The defendants have also filed a separate motion to dismiss the entire case. They argue that the plaintiffs should have first gone through the state's administrative process to claim their money before filing a lawsuit.
If the court grants the motion to dismiss the entire case, the issue of the class action would not need to be decided.