COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70862 RICHARD R. BRADY, et al : : Plaintiff-appellants : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION BP EXPLORATION & OIL, INC. : : Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : MAY 22, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 285,678 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiffs-appellants: DENNIS E. MURRAY DAVID D. YEAGLEY Attorneys at Law Murray & Murray Co. 111 East Shoreline Drive Post Office Box 19 Sandusky, Ohio 44871-0019 For defendant-appellee: PAUL P. EYRE LISA HAMMOND JOHNSON JOHN D. PARKER Attorneys at Law Baker & Hostetler 3200 National City Center 1900 East 9 Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3485 MAHONEY, J.: The following appeal arises from a decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that determined plaintiffs- 1 appellants, Richard R. Brady, et al. ("appellants") , had failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification in their lawsuit against defendant-appellee, BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. ("appel- lee"). For the reasons that follow, we find the issues raised on appeal are not ripe for review and hereby dismiss appellants' appeal. In March 1995, appellants filed a consumer protection action against appellee seeking damages for allegedly unfair and decep- tive advertising practices. Appellants originally sought certifi- cation of a multistate class comprised of consumers who had pur- chased BP Super 93 octane gasoline in seventeen states. Alterna- tively, appellants sought certification of a class of Ohio consum- ers who had made the same purchases. In its journal entry denying appellants' motion, the trial court determined that appellants 1 Originally, both Richard R. Brady and Jack Kenning were named as plaintiffs. Plaintiff Kenning eventually voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, his claims against appellee. We will continue, however, to refer to the sole remaining plaintiff as "appellants" for purposes of this opinion. - 3 - failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification as set forth in Civ.R. 23. Appellants appealed this decision and assigned three errors for this court's review. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants filed another motion for class certification in the trial court, seeking to certify a different "refined" Ohio class of consumers. Appellants concede that they no longer are seeking class certification for multistate consumers or the original Ohio class of consumers. As such, they recognize that any assignments of error directed to these previously-litigated issues are not now justiciable. Nonetheless, they argue that the errors raised are relevant to their pending motion for class certification. In this regard, they contend that the trial court's judgment entry denying certification "might apply to the refined Ohio class" and, there- fore, this court is to analyze their appeal in light of the class certification motion presently pending in the trial court. The duty of a reviewing court is to decide actual controver- sies and render judgments that are capable of enforcement. Knutty v. Wallace (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 555, 558-559. We are not required to address issues that are not ripe for review or those that would be purely academic in nature. See Bentleyville v. Pisani (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 515, 518-519; James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791; see, also, Karches v. Cincinnati (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 12, 14-15. A claim is not ripe for appellate review unless the trial court has arrived at a - 4 - definitive position on the issue. Pisani, supra, at 518-519. To address an issue prematurely would have the effect of rendering an advisory opinion on potential issues. See Andonian v. A.C. & S., Inc. (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 572, 575-576; State v. Bistricky (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 395, 397. This is precisely what appellants urge this court to do. Acknowledging that they are exclusively seeking class certifica- tion for the refined Ohio class, appellants seek to have this court render an opinion that would have prospective application to their presently-pending motion for class certification. This, the court cannot do. We are unable to address issues that are not before this court nor can we render an opinion that would have the effect of advising the trial court on how to rule on a motion presently pending before it. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss appellants' appeal as not being ripe for appellate review. However, the within cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings relative to appellants' motion for class certification of a different "refined" Ohio class of consumers. Because we have not expressed an opinion on the merits of the matter before us, appellant Brady is not precluded from raising the same arguments in his motion pending in the trial court. - 5 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DIANE KARPINSKI, P.J. and JOHN T. PATTON, J. CONCUR JUDGE JOSEPH E. MAHONEY* *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: Joseph E. Mahoney, retired Judge of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment of the Ohio Supreme Court. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .