"Where a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction is to be consolidated with a trial on the merits, Civ.R. 65(B)(2) requires the court to issue a 'consolidation' order before the hearing, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits." Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227 (8th Dist.1984), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶29} For example, in Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Columbus, ,2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215 (10th Dist.), the Tenth District held that the city was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to give clear and unambiguous notice that it intended to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits, where gun rights activists did not disclose their expert's opinions before hearing; the city was unable to effectively cross-examine the activists' expert; the city made the strategic decision based on procedural status of the matter to not present expert or factual evidence; and the trial court relied on the activists' expert testimony in its resolution of the issues.

This subdivision (B)(2) shall be so construed and applied as to save to the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury. {¶ 13} As this court recognized in Lend-A-Paw Feline Shelter, Inc. v. Lend-A-Paw Found. of Greater Toledo, Inc., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-01-1052, 2001 WL 1388029 (Nov. 9, 2001), citing Turoff v. Stefanac, 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228, 475 N.E.2d 189 (1984), "the general rule is that a court must 'order the consolidation of a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, thus providing the parties with notice that the case is, in fact, being heard on the merits.'" That notice provides the parties a "'full opportunity to present their respective cases.'"

The trial court handled the TRO and preliminary injunction request together, which is proper where, as here, both parties had notice of, were present at, and participated in the hearing. See Turoff v. Stefanec (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227, 228, 475 N.E.2d 189. The trial court then granted the TRO/preliminary injunction and instructed the parties to brief the issue of whether a permanent mandatory injunction should issue, which both sides then did.

However, "it is generally improper to dispose of a case on the merits following a hearing for a preliminary injunction without consolidating that hearing with a trial on the merits or otherwise giving notice to counsel that the merits would be considered." Seasonings Etcetera, Inc. v. Nay (Feb. 23, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP1056, citing George P. Ballas Buick-GMC, Inc. v. Taylor Buick, Inc. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 71; Turoff v. Stefanac (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 227. "Before consolidation, the parties should normally receive clear and unambiguous notice of the court's intent to consolidate the trial and the hearing either before the hearing commences or at a time which will still afford the parties a full opportunity to present their respective cases." Bd. of Edn. Ironton City Schools v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. (June 29, 1993), Lawrence App. No. CA92-39, citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch (1981), 45 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830; Warren Plaza v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (June 15, 1990), Trumbull App. No. 88-T-4122, jurisdictional motion allowed, 55 Ohio St.3d 705, appeal dismissed (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 497.