Grier v. Kleri

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 8th District Court of Appeals » 2001 » Grier v. Kleri

Grier v. Kleri

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2001-Ohio-4147

Case Date: 10/05/2001

Plaintiff: Grier

Defendant: Kleri

Preview:[Cite as Grier v. Kleri, 2001-Ohio-4147.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80313 BOBRETTA GRIER, ET AL. Relators v. JUDGE PATRICIA ANN KLERI, et al. Respondent DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: JUDGMENT: APPEARANCES: For Relators: MICHAEL TROY WATSON, ESQ. WENDLE SCOTT RAMSEY, ESQ. WATSON & WATSON Superior Bldg., Ste. 400 815 Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For Respondent: VINCENT A. FEUDO, ESQ. Law Director South Euclid Municipal Court 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121 BEZALEL CHESNER 2414 Allen Blvd. Beachwood, Ohio 44124 ANDREW A. KABAT, ESQ. Reminger & Reminger 113 St. Clair Bldg., Ste. 700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 : : : : : : : : : : : ORIGINAL ACTION

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

OCTOBER 5, 2001 WRIT OF PROHIBITION Dismissed.

(Appearances continued on next page.)

[Cite as Grier v. Kleri, 2001-Ohio-4147.] (Appearances, continued) SUSAN J. SHVARTZ Broker/President of U.S. One Realty Company 1481 Warrensville Center Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121 Legal Department U.S. One Realty Company 1481 Warrensville Center Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121

[Cite as Grier v. Kleri, 2001-Ohio-4147.] KARPINSKI, ADM.J.: The relators, Bobretta Grier and Raechelle Grier, have filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition and unspecified declaratory relief. Sua sponte, we dismiss the relators' complaint for a writ

of prohibition and unspecified declaratory relief. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ which is not routinely or easily granted. For this Court to issue a writ of prohibition, the

relators must demonstrate that: (1) the respondent is about to exercise judicial power; (2) the exercise of such judicial power is unauthorized by law; and (3) the denial of the writ will cause injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton

Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 536, 66 N.E.2d 458; State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 540 N.E.2d 239. prohibition. An adequate remedy at law will preclude relief in State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. V. City of Berea Furthermore, prohibition

68, 417 N.E.2d 1382;

(1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 85, 218 N.E.2d 428.

does not lie unless the relators clearly demonstrate that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause which it is attempting to

adjudicate or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction.

State

ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe (1941), 138 Ohio St. 417, 35 N.E.2d 571. Prohibition must be used with great caution and should not be issued in a doubtful case. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty.

-4Court of Common Pleas (1940), 137 Ohio St. 273, 28 N.E.2d 641; Reiss v. Columbus Municipal Court (App. 1956), 76 Ohio Law Abs. 141, 145 N.E.2d 447. Initially, we find that the relators' complaint for

prohibition and unspecified declaratory relief is moot since the underlying action of Chesner v. Grier, et al., South Euclid

Municipal Court Case No. 2001-CVG-186 has concluded and is subject to or was subject to an adequate remedy at law vis-a-vis a direct appeal to this court. It must also be noted that a postjudgment

appeal from a judgment which overrules a motion to dismiss will provide an adequate legal remedy which warrants dismissal of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Toma v. Judge

Corrigan (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 589, 752 N.E.2d 281; Fraiberg v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Div. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 374, 667 N.E.2d; Brooks v. Gaul (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 729 N.E.2d 752. In addition, the relators fail to state a claim for relief against Bezalel Chesner, Susan J. Shvartz or U.S. One Realty Co. Not one of the aforesaid parties is about to exercise any judicial power or authority. State ex rel. Bristow v. Toledo Blade, et al.

(Mar. 6, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 79194, unreported. Finally, we find that the relators have failed to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a), which provides that all complaints must contain the specific statements of fact upon which the claim of

-5illegality is based and must be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim. State ex

rel. Wilson v. Calabrese (Jan. 18, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70077, unreported; State ex rel. Smith v. McMonagle (July 17, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 70899, unreported. Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the relators' complaint for a writ of prohibition and unspecified declaratory relief. It is

further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B). Complaint dismissed. ANN DYKE, J., and COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Costs to relator.

Download 2001-ohio-4147.pdf