State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals

[Cite as State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2019-Ohio-3258.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. : JUDGES:
STEVEN A. ARMATAS : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Relator, : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
:
PLAIN TOWNSHIP :
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS :
: Case No. 2019CA00001
And :
:
THOMAS FERRARA, in his official :
Capacity as Zoning Director for :
Plain Township, Ohio :
: OPINION
Respondents, :
:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 12, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent Thomas Ferrara
STEVEN A. ARMATAS JAMES F. MATHEWS
7690 Bucknell Circle N.W. ANDREA K. ZIARKO
North Canton, Ohio 44720 Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews
400 South Main Street
North Canton, Ohio 44720
For Respondent Plain Township Board
Of Zoning Appeals
ERIC J. WILLIAMS
Pelini, Campbell & Williams, LLC
8040 Cleveland Ave, NW, Suite 400
North Canton, Ohio 44720
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00001 2
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} Relator, Steven Armatas, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
requesting this Court issue a writ ordering the following: first, Relator seeks an order
requiring Respondent Ferrara, who is the Plain Township Zoning Director, to reduce his
decision in writing; and second, Relator seeks an order requiring the Plain Township
Board of Zoning Appeals to hold a hearing and issue a written decision on appeal after
Ferrara issues his written decision.
{¶2} Respondents have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which Relator
opposes.
{¶3} Relator filed his first Petition for Writ of Mandamus on October 14, 2016
naming the Plain Township Board of Trustees and Thomas Ferrara, the zoning director,
as respondents. The 2016 petition was based upon the same set of facts as the instant
petition.
{¶4} The essence of both complaints revolves around a local zoning ordinance
Relator believed his neighbors violated. Relator asked Respondent Ferrara to find a
violation of the ordinance. Ferrara orally advised Relator he did not believe the neighbors
were in violation of the ordinance. In his first complaint, Relator filed a petition for writ of
mandamus requesting this Court order the Respondents to enforce the zoning ordinance.
This Court dismissed the petition because Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law
by appealing a decision of the zoning inspector to the zoning board. Relator filed an
appeal of our decision with the Supreme Court, however, the case was dismissed for
want of prosecution.
{¶5} Following our decision in the first mandamus case, Relator did pursue an
appeal of the decision of the zoning inspector to the zoning board. The zoning board
refused to hear the appeal because the appeal was untimely.
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00001 3
{¶6} Relator has now instituted this second mandamus petition requesting the
zoning director be ordered to reduce his decision in writing and requesting the zoning
board be ordered to hear his appeal once the decision is reduced to writing.
{¶7} Relator could have raised the issue of Ferrara’s failure to reduce his
decision to writing in the first mandamus action, therefore, raising the issue in a second
mandamus complaint is barred by res judicata.
{¶8} “Res judicata operates as ‘a complete bar to any subsequent action on the
same claim or cause of action between the parties or those in privity with them.’” Brown
v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St. 3d 245, 2000-Ohio-148, 730 N.E.2d 958.
{¶9} “What constitutes privity in the context of res judicata is somewhat
amorphous. A contractual or beneficiary relationship is not required:
{¶10}
In certain situations * * * a broader definition of ‘privity’ is warranted.
As a general matter, privity ‘is merely a word used to say that the
relationship between the one who is a party on the record and another is
close enough to include that other within the res judicata.’ Bruszewski v.
United States (C.A.3, 1950), 181 F.2d 419, 423 (Goodrich, J., concurring).”
Thompson v. Wing (1994), 70 Ohio St. 3d 176, 184, 637 N.E.2d 917, 923.
Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St. 3d 245, 2000-Ohio-148, 730 N.E.2d 958.
{¶11} The claim that Respondent Ferrara should be required to reduce his decision
to writing existed at the time of the first mandamus action was brought, therefore, the claim
could have been raised in the first mandamus action. “The judgment in [the] first mandamus
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00001 4
action is conclusive on all claims that either were or might have been litigated in the first
lawsuit.” State ex rel. Carroll v. Corrigan, 91 Ohio St. 3d 331, 2001-Ohio-54, 744 N.E.2d
771.
{¶12} Here, Relator could have brought the claims against the zoning inspector in
the first mandamus action. The zoning director was named as a party in the first
mandamus petition, and the facts in the first petition surrounded the actions of the zoning
director. Relator could have raised the issue in the first petition, therefore, he is barred
from raising it now.
{¶13} Next, Relator asks this Court to issue a writ requiring the Zoning Board to
hold a hearing once Ferrara issued a written decision. This cause of action is conditioned
upon our granting a writ in the first cause of action which we have decided will not issue.
Therefore, the second cause of action is moot. Summary judgment is granted on all
claims is granted in favor of Respondents.
By: Baldwin, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur.