State ex rel. Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees ( 2020 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2020-Ohio-3331.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. BRIAN M. AMES, : PER CURIAM OPINION
Relator, :
CASE NO. 2019-P-0086
- vs - :
ROOTSTOWN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF :
TRUSTEES, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus.
Judgment: Petition dismissed.
Brian M. Ames, pro se, 2632 Ranfield Road, Mogadore, OH 44260 (Relator).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna,
OH 44266 (For Respondent, Portage County Court of Common Pleas).
James F. Mathews, and Andrea K. Ziarko, Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 400
South Main Street, North Canton, OH 44720 (For Respondents, Rootstown Township
Board of Trustees and Rootstown Township Fiscal Officer).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Brian M. Ames, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging
that Respondent Rootstown Township Board of Trustees (“the Board”) has violated
Ohio’s Open Meetings Act and that Respondent Portage County Court of Common Pleas
has refused to “perform the acts that R.C. 121.22(I) specially enjoins as a duty resulting
from its office by recusing from all cases brought pursuant to the OMA since June 28,
2016.” He specifically asks this court to:
{¶2} (1) Render judgment for Relator finding that the Board has violated
the provisions of R.C. 121.22(G) and R.C. 121.22(C) as set forth in
Counts 1 and 2.
{¶3} (2) Allow the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents
Rootstown Township Board of Trustees and Rootstown Township
Fiscal Officer to prepare, file, and maintain full and accurate minutes
for its meetings of April 10, 2018 and August 28, 2018 and to conduct
all meetings in public, except for properly called executive sessions.
{¶4} (4) [sic] Award all costs and attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 2731.11
and 149.43(C).
{¶5} (5) [sic] Allow the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel
Respondent Common Pleas to perform the acts that R.C. 121.22(I)
specially enjoins as a duty resulting from its office.
{¶6} Relator has previously filed a mandamus action seeking declaratory
judgment and injunction under R.C. 121.22 in State ex rel. Ames v. Rootstown Township
Board of Trustees, Portage County Court of Common Pleas case number
2019CV000180. In his present petition, relator asserts the same claims and seeks similar
relief as his initial action.
{¶7} Nevertheless, relator argues he is entitled to bring this action in mandamus
in this court pursuant to State ex rel. Long v. Cardington Village Council, 92 Ohio St. 3d
54 (2001), which states “[a]n action for a mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy
that does not preclude a writ of mandamus to enforce the Sunshine Law or Public Records
Act.” Id. at 60. That particular point of law is inapplicable in this action, however, as
relator has already filed a mandamus action in case number 2019CV000180. Long does
not permit a relator to bring two actions in mandamus in two separate courts
2
simultaneously. Indeed, if this was permissible, it would create the potential for
inconsistent rulings.
{¶8} Instead, according to the jurisdictional priority rule, “between state courts of
concurrent jurisdiction, the authority of the court which first properly acquires jurisdiction
of a matter continues until the matter is completely and finally adjudicated.” In re Adoption
of Stojkov, 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 2001-T-0114 and 2001-T-0115, 2002-Ohio-631, 2002
WL 234281 (Feb. 14, 2002), citing State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St. 3d 426,
429 (2001). Therefore, as relator first sought relief in the Portage County Court of
Common Pleas, at the time of the filing of this action the trial court had jurisdiction over
this matter. We note, however, that while the record before us does not indicate the case
has been concluded in the trial court, relator has filed an appeal in this court of State ex
rel. Ames v. Rootstown Township Board of Trustees, Portage County Court of Common
Pleas case number 2019CV000180. Nevertheless, we cannot grant relator the relief he
seeks in this action.
{¶9} Furthermore, insofar as relator seeks an order from this court to the trial
court to proceed to judgment, a petition for a writ procedendo would be the appropriate
vehicle, not a redundant petition for writ of mandamus as relator has filed.
{¶10} In light of the foregoing, respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Relator’s petition is dismissed, and all other pending motions are denied.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.
3