Gaslite Leasing, L.L.C. v. Haupt

[Cite as Gaslite Leasing, L.L.C. v. Haupt, 2020-Ohio-2856.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GASLITE LEASING, LLC D/B/A : JUDGES:
JACKSON RIDGE REHABILITATION : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
AND CARE, ET AL. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Relators :
:
-vs- :
:
HON. NATALIE R. HAUPT, JUDGE, : Case No. 2020CA00078
STARK COUNTY COURT OF :
COMMON PLEAS :
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: May 7, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Relators For Respondent
G. BRENDA COEY JOHN D. FERRERO
The Coey Law Firm, LLC Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
5344 Limerick Avenue, NW STEPHAN P. BABIK
North Canton, OH 44720 Chief Prosecuting Attorney, Civil Div.
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 2
Canton, OH 44702
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} On April 9, 2020, Relators, Gaslite Leasing, LLC d/b/a/ Jackson Ridge
Rehabilitation and Care and Providence Healthcare Management, Inc. (collectively,
“Jackson Ridge”), filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition against
Respondent, Judge Natalie R. Haupt of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas,
General Division. Jackson Ridge asks the Court to grant it mandamus/prohibition relief to
prevent Judge Haupt from enforcing Orders she issued on March 17, 2020 and April 6,
2020 in Rhonda Meadows v. Jackson Ridge Rehabilitation and Care, et al., Case No.
2015CV02169. The Stark County Prosecuting Attorney represents Judge Haupt and filed
a Motion to Dismiss Relators’ Complaint on April 16, 2020. Judge Haupt’s motion is based
on Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). Jackson Ridge did not file a response to the motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} The matter that is the subject of this original action has been before the
Court on two separate appeals. Jackson Ridge’s first appeal challenged the trial court’s
Judgment Entry of June 22, 2017. (Complaint Mandamus/Prohibition at ¶ 7) In its first
appeal filed on February 7, 2018, Jackson Ridge appealed to this Court and posted a
supersedeas bond, with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, in the amount of
$73,357.05. (Id. at ¶ 8) However, we remanded the matter to the trial court because the
trial court’s judgment was not final and appealable due to a pending attorney fees’ issue.
See Meadows v. Jackson Ridge Rehab. and Care, et al., Stark No. 2017CA00207, 2018-
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 3
Ohio-2653. (Id. at ¶ 9) Thereafter, the trial court addressed the issue of attorney fees via
a Judgment Entry issued on December 5, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 10)
{¶ 3} Jackson Ridge again appealed to this Court on December 28, 2018
challenging both Judgment Entries. (Id. at ¶ 11) For the trial court’s Judgment Entry
issued on December 5, 2018, Jackson Ridge posted a cash bond in the amount of
$19,000, with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, simultaneously with the filing of
its appeal. (Id. at ¶ 12) Jackson Ridge alleges both bonds remain with the trial court. (Id.
at ¶ 13) On July 15, 2019, this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. (Id. at ¶ 14) See
Meadows v. Jackson Ridge Rehab. Care, et al., Stark No. 2018 CA 00184, 2019-Ohio-
2879. Thereafter, Jackson Ridge appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court asking it to
interpret the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (Id. at ¶ 15)
{¶ 4} The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to exercise jurisdiction over Jackson
Ridge’s appeal on November 6, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 16) However, on January 21, 2020, the
Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Jackson Ridge’s appeal for failure to prosecute. (Id. at ¶
17) See Meadows v. Jackson Ridge Rehab. & Care, 157 Ohio St.3d 1541, 2020-Ohio-
144, 137 N.E.3d 1192. Jackson Ridge filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Ohio
Supreme Court denied on March 11, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19) See Meadows v. Jackson
Ridge Rehab. & Care, 158 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2020-Ohio-748, 141 N.E.3d 237.
{¶ 5} Thereafter, on March 12, 2020, Plaintiff Rhonda Meadows filed a Renewed
Motion to Release the Funds on the basis that the trial court’s decision had reached
finality based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s dismissal. (Complaint Mandamus/Prohibition
at ¶ 20) On this same day, Jackson Ridge responded opposing Ms. Meadows’s motion
to release the bond funds and requested a stay pending further appeal. (Id. at ¶ 21)
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 4
Jackson Ridge pointed out that its Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before
the Ohio Supreme Court and it intended to appeal the decision to the United States
Supreme Court because the matter involved a federal question. (Id.)
{¶ 6} On March 17, 2020, Judge Haupt issued a Judgment Entry granting the
release of the bonds and denying Jackson Ridge’s request for a stay. (Id. at ¶ 23) On
April 6, 2020, Judge Haupt issued a Judgment Entry to the Stark County Clerk of Courts
ordering release of the funds being held in the clerk’s office. (Id. at ¶ 24) Jackson Ridge
believes the supersedeas bond funds remain in the clerk’s possession. (Id.) It further
maintains Judge Haupt “has a clear legal duty to observe the Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure. This duty includes refraining from lifting a stay and allowing access to the
supersedeas bonds when a matter is not fully and finally concluded, since all appeals
have not been exhausted through the appellate process.” (Id. at ¶ 25)
MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION LAW
{¶ 7} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right to
the relief prayed for, the respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the
requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law. (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 451
N.E.2d 225 (1983). “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy ‘to be issued with great
caution and discretion and only when the way is clear.’ ” State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser,
50 Ohio St.2d 165, 166, 364 N.E.2d 1 (1977), citing State ex rel. Kriss v. Richards, 102
Ohio St. 455, 457, 132 N.E. 23 (1921), and State ex rel. Skinner Engine Co. v. Kouri, 136
Ohio St. 343, 25 N.E.2d 940 (1940), paragraph one of the syllabus.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 5
‘It is the well-settled general rule in Ohio that the issuance of a writ
of mandamus rests, to a considerable extent at least, within the sound
discretion of the court to which application for the writ is made. The writ
is not demandable as a matter of right, or at least is not wholly a matter
of right; nor will it issue unless the relator has a clear right to the relief
sought, and makes a clear case for the issuance of the writ. The facts
submitted and the proof produced must be plain, clear, and convincing
before a court is justified in using the strong arm of the law by way of
granting the writ.’
(Citation omitted, emphasis added.) State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d
141, 161, 228 N.E.2d 631 (1967).
{¶ 8} With regard to a writ of prohibition, “Three elements are necessary for a writ
of prohibition to issue: the exercise of judicial (or quasi-judicial) power, the lack of authority
to exercise that power, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law.” State ex rel. Save Your Courthouse Commt. v. City of Medina, 157 Ohio St.3d 423,
2019-Ohio-3737, 137 N.E.3d 1118, ¶23, citing State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio
St.3d 89, 2015-Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶13.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 9} Judge Haupt requests dismissal of this action under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), “lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter” and Civ.R. 12(B)(6), “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted[.]” We find Judge Haupt is entitled to the requested relief on
both grounds.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 6
A. Writ of Mandamus
{¶ 10} Under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), Jackson Ridge’s Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
must be dismissed because we cannot exercise jurisdiction in this matter. Jackson Ridge
failed to file its Complaint in the name of the State of Ohio as required by R.C. 2731.04.
This statute provides, in pertinent part: “Application for the writ of mandamus must be by
petition, in the name of the state on the relation of the person applying, and verified by
affidavit.” Jackson Ridge filed its Complaint for Writ of Mandamus only in the names of
“Gaslite Leasing d/b/a Jackson Ridge Rehabilitation and and (sic) Care and Providence
Healthcare Management, Inc[.]” It did not file the Complaint in the name of the state. “ ‘A
writ of mandamus may be denied where the action is not brought in the name of the state
on the relation of the person requesting the writ.’ ” State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency,
Inc. v. Duryee, 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532, 653 N.E.2d 349, citing Maloney v. Sacks, 173
Ohio St. 237, 238, 181 N.E.2d 268 (1962). See also Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas
of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 227, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962) (“This action in mandamus
was not instituted in conformity with the provision of Section 2731.04, Revised Code, that
‘application for the writ of mandamus must be by petition, in the name of the state on the
relation of the person applying[,]’ [citing] Gannon v. Gallagher, Dir., 145 Ohio St. 170, 60
N.E.2d 666.” (Emphasis sic.)).
{¶ 11} However, in Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-Ohio-
5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 35, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that “when a failure to
comply with R.C. 2731.04 is raised and relators file a motion for leave to amend the
caption of the complaint to specify that the mandamus action is brought in the name of
the state on their relation, [the court has] granted leave to amend so as to resolve cases
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 7
on the merits rather than on a pleading deficiency.” (Citation omitted.) The Court further
explained that, “[i]f, however, a respondent in a mandamus action raises this R.C.
2731.04 defect and relators fail to seek leave to amend their complaint to comply with
R.C. 2731.04, the mandamus action must be dismissed.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 36,
citing Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 75 Ohio St.3d
508, 664 N.E.2d 521 (1996).
{¶ 12} Here, Judge Haupt specifically addressed the fact, in her dismissal motion,
that Jackson Ridge failed to comply with the mandate of R.C. 2731.04 by failing to bring
its Complaint for mandamus relief in the name of the state. (See Motion to Dismiss at 7-
8.) Under a Judgment Entry issued by this Court on April 15, 2020, Jackson Ridge had
fourteen days from the filing date of Judge Haupt’s Motion to Dismiss to file a response
to the motion. During that time period, Jackson Ridge could have requested leave from
this Court to amend its Complaint for Mandamus to be in conformance with the statutory
requirement of R.C. 2731.04. Jackson Ridge failed to do so. Therefore, we do not have
proper jurisdiction over this matter and must dismiss Jackson Ridge’s Complaint in
mandamus under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).
B. Writ of Prohibition
{¶ 13} Under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), we find Jackson Ridge failed to state a claim for
relief via a writ of prohibition because it seeks to use the writ as a correctional remedy.
The purpose of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of the complaint. State
ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Loc. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94, 95, 647
N.E.2d 788 (1995). In order for a case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim, it must
appear beyond doubt that, even assuming all factual allegations in the complaint are true,
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 8
the nonmoving party can prove no set of facts that would entitle that party to the relief
requested. Keith v. Bobby, 117 Ohio St.3d 470, 2008-Ohio-1443, 884 N.E.2d 1067, ¶10.
Further, in considering a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), a court is permitted,
under Civ.R. 10, to consider written instruments if they are attached to the complaint.
(Citations omitted.) Natl. City Mtge. Co. v. Wellman, 174 Ohio App.3d 622, 2008-Ohio-
207, 883 N.E.2d 1122, ¶17 (4th Dist.).
{¶ 14} In the present matter, Jackson Ridge attached Judge Haupt’s Orders of
March 17, 2020 and April 6, 2020. Both Orders identify the amount due and owing plaintiff,
which is $101,320.03. The March 17, 2020 Order instructs the bonding company
Guarantee Company of North America USA to release $73,357.05 to plaintiff and her
counsel to cover that portion of the judgment due and owing plaintiff. The April 6, 2020
Order notes that application of the supersedeas bond of $73,357.05 leaves $27,962.98
due plaintiff and her counsel. Judge Haupt ordered the clerk to immediately release
$27,962.98 from the deposited funds to plaintiff and her counsel and use the remaining
portion to cover court costs. Further, the Stark County Clerk of Court’s docket indicates
the clerk issued check #240685 to plaintiff and her counsel on April 7, 2020.1
{¶ 15} Jackson Ridge is attempting to use its Complaint for Writ of Prohibition to
rectify Judge Haupt’s actions in releasing the bond proceeds. “A writ of prohibition is a
measure designed to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter over which it has no
authority, as opposed to a correctional remedy * * *” State ex rel. Henneke v. Davis, 25
1
This Court can take judicial notice of court filings which are readily accessible from the
internet. See State v. Seiple, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00087, 2020-Ohio-1266, ¶ 13.
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 9
Ohio St.3d 23, 25, 494 N.E.2d 1133 (1986). See also State ex rel. Stefanick v. Mun. Ct.
of Marietta, 21 Ohio St.2d 102, 104-105, 255 N.E.2d 634 (1970):
Prohibition is a preventive writ rather than a corrective remedy and is
designed to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter which it is not
authorized to hear and determine. * * * It cannot be used to review the
regularity of an act already performed. * * * Even if it is assumed that the
civil judgment and the order of levy were unlawful, the record in this case
discloses that the civil suit has already gone to judgment and the time
allowed to appeal that judgment has elapsed. Appellant cannot use
prohibition as a substitute for appeal.
(Citations omitted.)
{¶ 16} Here, Judge Haupt has already ordered the supersedeas funds released.
Jackson Ridge acknowledges this fact by attaching Judge Haupt’s two Orders instructing
the clerk of courts to release the funds. Jackson Ridge cannot use a writ of prohibition as
a correctional remedy in lieu of an appeal. Therefore, we grant Judge Haupt’s Motion to
Dismiss Jackson Ridge’s Complaint for Writ of Prohibition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we hereby dismiss Jackson Ridge’s Complaint
for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition. 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).
Stark County, Case No. 2020CA00078 10
{¶ 18} MOTION GRANTED.
{¶ 19} CAUSE DISMISSED.
{¶ 20} COSTS TO RELATORS.
{¶ 21} IT IS SO ORDERED.
By Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
EEW/