Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the appellant, Jeffery Woods, who filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Woods then attempted to remove the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. However, a United States magistrate judge recommended denying Woods's petition for removal and remanding the matter back to the state court. The federal court eventually adopted this recommendation. Meanwhile, before the federal court had ruled on Woods's objections, Judge Heekin of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to dismiss Woods's legal malpractice lawsuit.Woods then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against Judge Heekin in the First District Court of Appeals, arguing that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over his legal malpractice lawsuit once he filed his notice of removal to federal court. He sought an order for Judge Heekin to vacate the judgment of dismissal. Judge Heekin filed a motion to dismiss Woods's mandamus complaint, arguing that Woods did not perform the necessary steps for effecting removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court still had jurisdiction. The court of appeals dismissed Woods's mandamus complaint, but not for the reasons set forth in Judge Heekin’s motion. Instead, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the basis that “mandamus cannot be used to compel a particular ruling from a judge.”The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, but disagreed with its reasoning. The Supreme Court held that if Woods was correct that Judge Heekin patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action, a writ of mandamus would be an appropriate remedy. However, the Supreme Court found that Woods did not complete all the necessary steps for removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action. Therefore, the dismissal of Woods's mandamus complaint was correct. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation. The appellant, Brian Caldwell, was injured while working for the appellee, Whirlpool Corporation. After a successful initial workers’ compensation claim, Caldwell sought coverage for additional conditions a few years later. However, his claim for these additional conditions was denied after administrative hearings before the commission. Caldwell then appealed to a court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.512. The trial court and the court of appeals, in granting and affirming summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool, determined that Caldwell’s claim had expired as a matter of law because a separate statute, R.C. 4123.52, limited the commission’s continuing jurisdiction to five years from the date of the last payment of compensation on Caldwell’s initial claim and that five years had passed.The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation. The court held that when a workers’ compensation claimant perfects an appeal under R.C. 4123.512, the subsequent expiration of the commission’s five-year period of continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.52 does not cause the claim that is pending in court to expire as a matter of law. The court reasoned that R.C. 4123.52, which establishes the continuing jurisdiction of the commission, does not affect R.C. 4123.512 court proceedings once they have been properly initiated. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves S.Y.C., who appealed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissing her petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus against Judge Alison L. Floyd of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. S.Y.C. sought to compel rulings on motions pending before Judge Floyd, who was overseeing the child-custody cases involving S.Y.C., her former partner, and their two children. The Eighth District dismissed S.Y.C.’s petition as moot, finding that Judge Floyd had disposed of the motions.The case originated in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and was transferred to Cuyahoga County in 2016. It involved multiple appeals, petitions for extraordinary writs, and affidavits of disqualification. S.Y.C. filed a petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus in the Eighth District, alleging that Judge Floyd had failed to rule on “at least seven” pending motions filed between April 2021 and August 2022. Judge Floyd filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that S.Y.C.’s petition was moot as the motions identified in S.Y.C.’s petition had been ruled on or withdrawn or were not a motion and therefore did not require a decision from the court.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing S.Y.C.’s petition for writs of procedendo and mandamus as moot. The court found that Judge Floyd had ruled on all the motions that were the subject of the petition, rendering moot S.Y.C.’s petition. The court also rejected S.Y.C.’s other arguments about Judge Floyd’s rulings, noting that S.Y.C. was essentially seeking an appellate review of Judge Floyd’s judgments, which is not the purpose of either procedendo or mandamus. View "State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd" on Justia Law

The case involves a divorce proceeding initiated by Jolene K. Makuch against John Makuch III in the Geauga County Common Pleas Court. Jolene represented herself, stating she could not afford representation. After the trial, the magistrate noted that Jolene had failed to provide evidence regarding the division of marital property, spousal or child support, or attorney fees. The magistrate ordered a hearing for the parties to present additional evidence on these matters. John objected to the magistrate's decision, challenging the order for a hearing to present additional evidence.The Common Pleas Court, presided over by Judge Carolyn J. Paschke, overruled John's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. The court noted that the parties had failed to present sufficient evidence at trial regarding the nature, extent, and value of the marital property, their income, and debts. The court set a future hearing date for the parties to present complete evidence on these matters. John appealed this decision to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals dismissed John's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, determining that Judge Paschke's entry was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B). The court explained that in a divorce action, no final appealable order exists until all issues relating to property division, support, and parental rights and responsibilities have been addressed. John then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to accept jurisdiction in this discretionary appeal filed on behalf of John. The court found the appeal to be frivolous, as it was neither warranted by existing law nor supported by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. The court denied John's motions for clarification and for leave to file a supplemental brief. The court also declined to impose sanctions on John's counsel, who had previously been declared to be vexatious litigators. View "Makuch v. Makuch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed a decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeals concerning the right to a jury trial in a civil case. The case arose from a dispute between the Estate of Tomlinson and Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc., regarding the installation of a swimming pool and a deck. The plaintiff, Tomlinson, filed a lawsuit and demanded a jury trial, paying a $500 jury deposit as required by a local rule. Later, Tomlinson withdrew her request for a jury trial, but Mega Pool still wanted a jury trial.The trial court and the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that Mega Pool had waived its right to a jury trial because it had not paid a $500 jury deposit, as required by the local rule. The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed, ruling that the local rule did not require each party seeking a jury trial to pay a separate deposit. The court also held that, under Civ.R. 38(D), a party may not unilaterally withdraw a jury demand without the consent of all the parties.The court noted that Tomlinson's attempt to withdraw her jury demand without Mega Pool's consent violated Civ.R. 38(D). As such, the court reversed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the relator, Kimani Ware, an inmate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”), and several of its employees, to respond to six of his public-records requests, and to award him statutory damages and court costs.Concerning each of the six requests, the respondents argued that they were not required to provide the requested records because Ware did not identify them as formal public-records requests. The court disagreed, stating that the Public Records Act does not require a requester to formally label a request as a “formal public records request”.Regarding the May 29, 2021 and October 6, 2021 requests, the court denied Ware's writ and the request for statutory damages, as the respondents had provided evidence that they provided the requested records. However, for the June 3, 2022 and June 19, 2022 requests, the court granted the writ and awarded Ware $1,000 in statutory damages for each request, as the respondents did not provide the requested documents.As for the June 5, 2022 and July 23, 2022 requests, the writ and the request for statutory damages were denied since Ware did not submit these two requests to the proper records custodians.Lastly, the court denied respondents’ motion to declare Ware a vexatious litigator, stating that respondents had not shown that Ware has “habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause engage[d] in frivolous conduct". View "State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a public records request made by the relator, Thomas Clark, an inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution. Clark sent a request to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for an up-to-date paper copy of the commissary price list for each commissary window at the prison. After several failed attempts to obtain the information through internal procedures, and despite an assurance from an inspector that he would provide the requested lists, Clark had still not received the paper copies. He therefore filed a mandamus action to compel the ODRC to provide the records.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the writ of mandamus as moot because the ODRC had already provided Clark with the records he requested. However, the court found that the ODRC had failed to comply with its obligations under Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, for 11 business days starting from the day Clark filed the mandamus action. Accordingly, the court awarded Clark $1,000 in statutory damages, the maximum amount allowed under the statute. The court declined to award court costs, finding no evidence of bad faith on the part of the ODRC. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio State University suspended in-person instruction, transitioned to virtual learning, restricted campus access, and provided limited refunds to students. Brooke Smith, a student at the university, filed a class-action lawsuit against the university, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Smith argued that students had lost the benefits of their education without sufficient refunds.The Supreme Court of Ohio considered whether discretionary immunity, which shields the state from lawsuits for certain highly discretionary decisions, was a jurisdictional bar or an affirmative defense to suits brought against the state. The court held that discretionary immunity was indeed a jurisdictional bar, not an affirmative defense. This means that when the state makes highly discretionary decisions, such as its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction as the state has not waived its sovereign immunity for those decisions.However, the court noted that discretionary immunity is not absolute and does not extend to the negligent actions of the state's employees and agents in the performance of these activities. The court reversed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which had found that discretionary immunity was an affirmative defense, and remanded the case back to that court to determine whether Ohio State University was protected by discretionary immunity in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. View "Smith v. Ohio State Univ." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of mandamus brought by Kimani E. Ware, an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI), against Lori Beggs, the manager of TCI's cashier’s office, and TCI itself. Ware had requested certain public records related to his personal account at TCI, and claimed that he had not received the requested documents. Beggs, however, provided evidence that she had printed and mailed the requested records. The court found that Ware did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Beggs failed to send the requested records, and concluded that the mandamus claim was moot because Beggs had fulfilled her duty by mailing the records. The court also denied Ware's request for statutory damages because he did not meet the necessary burden of proof to demonstrate that Beggs failed to comply with her obligations under the Public Records Act at the time he filed the action. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs" on Justia Law

The Cincinnati Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus to compel Andy Wilson, the director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, to produce records related to the travel and expenses of Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers and staff who attended the 2022 Super Bowl in Los Angeles, California, with Governor Mike DeWine. The department withheld the requested records, claiming they were "security records" and therefore exempt from disclosure.The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that the requested records did qualify as "security records" under R.C. 149.433(A)(1), which defines a security record as any record that contains information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage. The court found that the records contained information that the department used for protecting and maintaining the safety of the governor's office. The department's evidence showed that release of the requested records would pose a substantial risk to the governor’s safety by revealing the security detail’s planning, techniques, and patterns, and by exposing security limitations and vulnerabilities.The court also rejected the Cincinnati Enquirer's argument that the department violated the Public Records Act by failing to produce redacted versions of the requested records. The court explained that under R.C. 149.433(B)(1), a security record is not a public record and is consequently not subject to mandatory release or disclosure.Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus, as well as the Cincinnati Enquirer's requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson" on Justia Law