State ex rel. J.M. v. Celebrezze , 2023 Ohio 536 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State ex rel. J.M. v. Celebrezze, 2023-Ohio-536.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
J.M., :
Relator, :
No. 112400
v. :
THE HONORABLE JUDGE LESLIE :
ANN CELEBREZZE,
:
Respondent.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
DATED: February 17, 2023
Writ of Mandamus
Order No. 562106
Appearances:
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A.
Cruz, and Kelly R. Tauring, for relator.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:
J. M., the relator, seeks a writ of mandamus in order to compel Judge
Leslie Ann Celebrezze, the respondent, to provide “a full hearing and an adequate
opportunity to present evidence and testimony” in a divorce action captioned J.M.
v. A.M., Cuyahoga D.R. No. DV-22-392166. We deny the complaint for a writ of
mandamus because the relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to
mandamus.
On January 30, 2023, Judge Celebrezze entered an order that limited
the time for each party to present their case:
Each party shall be allocated a total of three (3) hours in which to
present their case. Time used in direct and cross examination will be
deducted from the examining parties’ time. Evid. R. 611(A). Regalbuto
v. Regalbuto, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99604, 2013-Ohio-5031; Snyder
v. Grant, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103796, 2016-Ohio-5247.
On February 13, 2023, J.M. filed her complaint for a writ of
mandamus. The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator
possesses a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent possesses a
clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and; (3) there exists no other
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. In addition, mandamus may not
control judicial discretion, even if the exercise of judicial discretion is grossly
abused. State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 676 N.E. 108 (1997); State
ex rel. Board Walk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 56 Ohio St.3d 33, 564
N.E.2d 86 (1990); State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914(1987). Moreover, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised
with caution and only when the right is clear. It should not issue in doubtful cases.
State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977); State ex rel.
Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 159 Ohio St. 581, 113 N.E.2d 14 (1953); State ex rel.
Connole v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 850 (8th
Dist.1993).
Evid. R. 611(A), which deals with the direct and cross-examination of
a witness, provides that
[t]he court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order
of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make
the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of
the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect
witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
Pursuant to Evid.R. 611(A), Judge Celebrezze may impose reasonable
limits on direct examination and cross-examination based on a variety of concerns,
such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’s safety,
repetitive testimony, or marginally relevant interrogation. Cleveland v. Garcia, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100017, 2014-Ohio-1425. In addition, the imposition of time
limits on the examination and cross-examination falls squarely within the sound
discretion of Judge Celebrezze and can only be addressed as an abuse of discretion
through a direct appeal. See, e.g., Snyder v. Grant, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103796,
2016-Ohio-5247; Regalbuto v. Regalbuto, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99604, 2013-
Ohio-5031.
Finally, the fact that a postjudgment appeal may be time consuming
and expensive to pursue does not render an appeal inadequate so as to justify
extraordinary relief through mandamus. State ex rel. Banc One Corp. v. Walker, 86
Ohio St.3d 169, 712 N.E.2d 742 (1999); Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of
Common Pleas, 76 Ohio St.3d 374, 667 N.E.2d 1189 (1996); State ex rel. Gillivan v.
Bd. of Tax Appeals, 70 Ohio St.3d 196, 638 N.E.2d 74 (1994).
Accordingly, we deny J.M.’s request for a peremptory writ of
mandamus. Costs to J.M. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties
with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by
Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
_______________________________
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR