State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski

[Cite as State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski, 2019-Ohio-3982.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE EX REL. RYAN SALIM C.A. Nos. 19CA011530
19CA011537
Relator
v.
HON. JUDGE MARK A. BETLESKI
Respondent ORIGINAL ACTION IN
PROCEDENDO
Dated: September 30, 2019
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Ryan Salim, has petitioned this Court for a writ of procedendo to
compel Respondent, Judge Mark Betleski, to rule on a motion for summary judgment
pending in Mr. Salim’s underlying civil case. Judge Betleski has moved to dismiss the
complaint as moot because he has ruled on the motion. Because the motion has been
ruled on, Mr. Salim’s claim is moot, and this Court dismisses his petition.
{¶2} To obtain a writ of procedendo, Mr. Salim must establish that he has a clear
legal right to require the judge to proceed, that the judge has a clear legal duty to proceed,
and that there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel.
Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v.
Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). Procedendo is
C.A. Nos. 19CA011530, 19CA011537
Page 2 of 3
the appropriate remedy when a court has refused to render a judgment or has
unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. CNG Financial
Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled that
procedendo will not “compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.”
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 1998-Ohio-541.
{¶3} Mr. Salim sought a writ of procedendo to order the judge to rule on the
pending motion for summary judgment. This Court may consider evidence outside the
complaint to determine that an action is moot. State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio
St.3d 227, 228 (2000). According to Judge Betleski’s motion to dismiss, and a review of
the trial court docket, Judge Betleski ruled on the motion for summary judgment that was
the subject of this complaint. Accordingly, this matter is moot.
{¶4} Because Mr. Salim’s claim is moot, his complaint is dismissed. Costs are
taxed to Mr. Salim. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in
default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).
THOMAS A. TEODOSIO
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
C.A. Nos. 19CA011530, 19CA011537
Page 3 of 3
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT E. JORDAN, JR., Pro se, Relator.
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and CHRIS A. PYANOWSKI, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Respondent.