[Cite as Comer v. Lifewise Academy, 2026-Ohio-2343.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
KEITH COMER
Requester v.
LIFEWISE ACADEMY
Respondent
Case No. 2026-00158PQ Special Master Sarah Pierce
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶1} This matter is before me for a report and recommendation. R.C.2743.75(F). I recommend that the court (1) grant respondent's motion to dismiss, and (2) order requester to bear the costs of this case.
I. Background {¶2} Respondent LifeWise Academy is a private, non-profit organization that provides voluntary, off-campus Bible-based religious instruction for public school students during the school day. See Req. Evidence, filed Apr. 2, 2026, p. 15; Resp. Motion to Dismiss, filed Apr. 9, 2026, p. 23.
A. The public records request {¶3} Requester Keith Comer made a public-records request to LifeWise Academy. Complaint, filed Feb. 2, 2026, p. 3. That request asked for two items: 1) for the time period
"January 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025," "[a]ll emails, text messages, and postal mail between Lifewise Academy and Southwest Licking School District . . . in which criminal background checks for Lifewise personnel are the subject of the communication" and 2)
"the record that a criminal background check was done for each Lifewise Academy employee or volunteer in accordance with Southwest Licking School District Board Policy JEFB." Compl., p. 3. Requester noted that the purpose of his request was "to confirm that the background checks for each required individual have been completed." Id.
{¶4} LifeWise Academy declined to provide records in response, noting that
"LifeWise is a private non-profit entity performing a private function, so it is not subject to
1
Ohio's Public Records Act." Compl., p. 4. LifeWise Academy provided Requester with related information available on its public website. Id.
B. Procedural history {¶5} This matter was referred to mediation. Mediation did not resolve the case, and a schedule was set for both parties to file evidence and memoranda supporting their positions. That schedule has run its course, making this case ripe for decision. Order Terminating Mediation, entered March 23, 2026.
II. Analysis A. Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted. {¶6} LifeWise Academy argues that this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case. See Resp. Motion to Dismiss, filed Apr. 9, 2026. On September 4, 2025, the Eighth District Court of Appeals issued a decision in Martin v. Accel Schools Ohio, 2025-Ohio-3150 (8th Dist.). The Eighth District held that this court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a public-records claim against a private entity. Id. at ¶ 25. Specifically, the Eighth District held that the jurisdictional grant at R.C. 2743.03(A)(3) is plain and unambiguous. Id. at ¶ 21-22. The plain meaning of that provision confers a limited expansion of this court's jurisdiction to include R.C. 149.43(B) claims against political subdivisions, but not to the same claims against private entities. Id. at ¶ 23-24. The Eighth District emphasized, however, that private entities may be subject to the Public Records Act, but that the remedy for enforcement of those duties is not the special statutory process in this court. Id. at ¶ 25.
{¶7} I note that this issue has not been resolved by the Supreme Court of Ohio. I also note that, should this case be appealed, the appeal would likely not proceed in the Eighth District Court of Appeals. R.C. 2743.75(G); see also State v. Fuller, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 547, at *1-*2 (8th Dist. Feb. 15, 1990) (comparing the persuasive authority of another appellate court with the mandatory authority of Ohio Supreme Court); State v. Long, 2023-Ohio-1952, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.) (court declined to follow a decision from another appellate district because courts must follow only the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court and cases decided in its own appellate district).
{¶8} The parties do not dispute that LifeWise Academy is a private entity. See Req. Evidence, filed April 2, 2026, p. 1, 15, 18-19. Considering the Eighth District's clear
2
holding regarding this court's jurisdiction, I recommend that the court grant LifeWise Academy's motion to dismiss. I emphasize, as did the Eighth District, that a private entity can be subject to the Public Records Act.
B. Costs. {¶9} Revised Code 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the court shall award a requester their filing fee and "any other costs associated with the action" if it finds a violation of the Public Records Act. I do not specifically find a violation of the Public Records Act in this case due to the threshold jurisdictional issue presented by LifeWise Academy. I therefore recommend that requester bear the costs of this case.
III. Conclusion {¶10} Based on the above considerations, I recommend that the court:
1) Grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and
2) Order requester to bear the costs of this case.
{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).
SARAH PIERCE
Special Master
Filed May 5, 2026 Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/18/26
3