State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
    ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-
    1165.]
    NOTICE
    This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
    advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
    promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
    South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
    formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
    the opinion is published.
    SLIP OPINION NO. 
    2023-OHIO-1165
    THE STATE EX REL. SUMMIT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE
    COMMITTEE v. LAROSE, SECY. OF STATE.
    [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
    may be cited as State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt.
    v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 
    2023-Ohio-1165
    .]
    Attorney fees—Relator failed to show that secretary of state acted in bad faith in
    rejecting its recommendation to make reappointment to county board of
    elections—Relator’s motion for attorney fees denied.
    (No. 2021-0327—Submitted February 7, 2023—Decided April 11, 2023.)
    IN MANDAMUS.
    __________________
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} In 2021, we granted a writ of mandamus compelling respondent,
    Secretary of State Frank LaRose, to reappoint Bryan C. Williams to the Summit
    County Board of Elections. State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive
    Commt. v. LaRose, 
    165 Ohio St.3d 185
    , 
    2021-Ohio-1464
    , 
    177 N.E.3d 218
    . More
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    than a year after we granted the writ, relator, the Summit County Republican Party
    Executive Committee, filed a motion for an award of more than $69,000 in attorney
    fees that it allegedly incurred in this case. We deny the motion.
    {¶ 2} Attorney fees may be awarded in a mandamus case when the party
    against whom the fees would be taxed acted in bad faith. See State ex rel. Kabatek
    v. Stackhouse, 
    6 Ohio St.3d 55
    , 
    451 N.E.2d 248
     (1983). To recover attorney fees
    based on bad faith, a party “must show more than negligence or bad judgment” on
    the part of the opposing party. State ex rel. Grumbles v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of
    Elections, 
    165 Ohio St.3d 552
    , 
    2021-Ohio-3132
    , 
    180 N.E.3d 1099
    , ¶ 20. “Bad
    faith” connotes a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, or
    some ulterior motive or ill will. State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 
    161 Ohio St.3d 130
    , 
    2020-Ohio-3686
    , 
    161 N.E.3d 575
    , ¶ 26.
    {¶ 3} The committee suggests that our decision granting a writ of
    mandamus establishes that Secretary LaRose acted in bad faith in rejecting the
    committee’s recommendation to reappoint Williams. But in granting the writ, we
    held only that Secretary LaRose abused his discretion in rejecting the committee’s
    recommendation. See Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. at ¶ 9, 28,
    37, 46, 56, 60, 67, 70. Our prior holding does not, in itself, support the committee’s
    request for an award of attorney fees.
    {¶ 4} The committee’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive.               The
    committee points to the fact that Secretary LaRose included individualized
    allegations in his explanations for rejecting other recommended appointees and that
    only with respect to Williams did Secretary LaRose profess a desire for a “cultural
    change” without identifying specific wrongdoing. And the committee asserts that
    Secretary LaRose acted with “[p]olitical [h]ostility” because he “perceive[d]
    Williams as a political opponent.” The evidence before us does not prove that
    Secretary LaRose rejected Williams’s appointment out of personal animus or that
    2
    January Term, 2023
    Secretary LaRose’s allegedly insufficient explanation for rejecting the committee’s
    recommendation reflects bad faith.
    {¶ 5} The committee also asserts that Secretary LaRose’s decision “caused
    severe and long-lasting consequences” to the committee. But the alleged severity
    of any consequences does not support the argument that Secretary LaRose acted in
    bad faith.   Moreover, to the extent that Secretary LaRose’s rejection of the
    committee’s recommendation caused reputational harm, that harm was suffered by
    Williams, not by the committee.
    {¶ 6} Because the committee has not shown that Secretary LaRose acted in
    bad faith in rejecting its recommendation to reappoint Williams, we deny its motion
    for attorney fees.
    Motion denied.
    KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
    and DETERS, JJ., concur.
    _________________
    Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Stephen W. Funk, and Emily K. Anglewicz;
    and Cassone Law Office, L.L.C., and Joshua J. Brown, for relator.
    Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Julie M. Pfeiffer, Michael A. Walton,
    and Caitlyn N. Johnson, Assistant Attorneys General; Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C.,
    David A. Lockshaw Jr., and Terrence O’Donnell, for respondent.
    _________________
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2021-0327

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/11/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/11/2023