Lane v. Pickerington , 2011 Ohio 1908 ( 2011 )

[Cite as Lane v. Pickerington, 2011-Ohio-1908.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
PAUL LANE : William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
Relator : Patricia A. Delaney, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 10-CA-14
:
:
CITY OF PICKERINGTON, et al., : OPINION
Respondents
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus Complaint
JUDGMENT: Summary Judgment Granted in Favor
of Respondents; Writ Denied
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 13, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondents
MICHAEL A. MOSES PHILLIP K. HARTMANN
Moses Law Offices, L.L.C. PAUL L. BITTNER
330 South High Street AARON L. GRANGER
Columbus, Ohio 43215 Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, LPA
250 West Street, Suite 700
Columbus, Ohio 43215
[Cite as Lane v. Pickerington, 2011-Ohio-1908.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Relator, Paul Lane, was employed by Respondent, the City of
Pickerington, as an Inspections Administrator. On November 5, 2009, Lane was
terminated from his employment with the City. Thereafter, on November 17, 2009,
Relator requested a hearing before Respondent, City of Pickerington Personnel
Appeals Board. By a letter dated December 1, 2009, Relator was informed by an
attorney representing the City that the City would not allow a hearing before the
Personnel Appeals Board because Relator was an unclassified employee.
{¶2} Relator has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court
to issue a writ of mandamus requiring Respondents to conduct a hearing and issue a
determination on the merits of Relator’s appeal.
{¶3} Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment. Respondents
argue they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Respondents have no
clear duty to provide an appeal due to the fact Relator was not a classified employee.
Respondents also suggest Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of an
appeal to the Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
{¶4} “Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any material
fact remains, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it
appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and
construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion
is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.” State
ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826
Fairfield County App. Case No. 10-CA-14 3
N.E.2d 832, ¶ 9; see also Todd Dev. Co. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461, 2008-Ohio-87,
880 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 11.
{¶5} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must demonstrate the
following: (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent
is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and (3) the relator has no plain
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Natl. City Bank v. Bd.
of Edn. (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 81, 84.
{¶6} We find the question of whether an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law exists to be dispositive of the issue presented in this case. Respondents
contend Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to the Court of
Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01. We agree.
{¶7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed this issue in a case analogous
to the case at bar. In State ex rel. Henderson v. Maple Heights Civil Service
Commission, et al. (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 39, 406 N.E.2d 1105, the Supreme Court held,
“A denial by the respondent civil service commission of jurisdiction of this controversy
represented a final appealable order. When the commission refused relator's request for
a hearing, relator should have appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. Having failed to
do so, and, thereby having failed to pursue his appellate remedies in the ordinary
course of law, he cannot now collaterally attack this jurisdictional determination. See
State ex rel. Stough v. Bd. of Edn. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 47, 362 N.E.2d 266, and State
ex rel. Bingham v. Riley (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 263, 217 N.E.2d 874.” Id. at 1106.
{¶8} In Henderson, the relator’s attorney received a letter from the civil service
commission, through the commission’s legal counsel, which stated, relator “does not fall
Fairfield County App. Case No. 10-CA-14 4
within the confines of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Maple Heights, Ohio.”
Likewise in the instant case, Relator was sent a letter stating in part, “The PAB does not
have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an unclassified employee regarding dismissal.
Therefore, the City respectfully declines your request for a hearing before the PAB.”
{¶9} Article IV, Section 4.11 of the City of Pickerington Charter provides in
relevant part: “The Law Director shall be the legal adviser of and attorney and counsel
for the Municipality and for all officials, boards, commissions, and departments thereof
in all matters relating to their official duties.” Pursuant to this section of the City’s
charter, the law director represents both the city and all boards which would include the
Personnel Appeals Board. As part of this representation, the law director sent a letter to
Relator advising him he was not going to be afforded a hearing before the Personnel
Appeals Board.
{¶10} We find the letter sent in both cases to be equivalent. The Supreme Court
found the letter denying a request for a hearing before a civil service commission to be
sufficient from which to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The appeal to the Court
of Common Pleas provides an adequate remedy in the original course of law the
existence of which precludes the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Fairfield County App. Case No. 10-CA-14 5
{¶11} Based upon the foregoing, we grant summary judgment in favor of
Respondents and deny Relator’s motion for summary judgment. The writ of mandamus
will not issue.
By: Edwards, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/as0223
[Cite as Lane v. Pickerington, 2011-Ohio-1908.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL LANE :
:
Relator :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
CITY OF PICKERINGTON :
:
Respondents : CASE NO. 10-CA-14
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file,
summary judgment is granted in favor of Respondents. The Complaint for writ of
mandamus is denied. Costs assessed to Relator.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES