2018 Ohio 680
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Arnold Black sued East Cleveland officers (O’Leary, Hicks), Chief Spotts, the city, and John Does for claims including federal civil-rights violations, false imprisonment, battery, spoliation, supervisory liability, malicious prosecution, and others arising from an April 28, 2012 arrest.
- Multiple discovery disputes led the trial court to order appellants to respond and to threaten sanctions; appellants appealed several pretrial orders as not final.
- Appellants filed appeals to the Eighth District and then to the Ohio Supreme Court while pretrial orders and sanction threats were pending; some appeals were dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, and one was accepted for consideration by the Ohio Supreme Court for a period.
- Despite the pending appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the trial court began a jury trial on May 25, 2016 (appellants and their counsel did not appear), the jury returned verdicts for Black on May 31, 2016, and the verdict was journalized June 3, 2016.
- The trial court later granted Hicks’s motion to dismiss appellants’ cross-claim on July 7, 2016. Appellants appealed; the Eighth District reversed and vacated the May 9 pretrial orders, the May 25–31 jury trial verdict and journalization, and the July 7 dismissal as void for lack of trial-court jurisdiction while appeals were pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue May 9, 2016 discovery/sanction orders while an appeal (Black I) was pending | Black argued the orders were proper and sanctions were warranted for discovery failures | Appellants argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because they had appealed the April 20 order to the appellate court | Court: Trial court lacked jurisdiction; May 9 orders were void because they were inconsistent with the pending appeal |
| Whether the trial court could commence a jury trial on May 25, 2016 while an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court (Black III) was pending | Black did not present evidence that the appeals divested jurisdiction and contended appellants filed appeals to delay | Appellants argued the notice of appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court divested the trial court of jurisdiction before trial began | Court: Filing of the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction; the jury trial, verdict, and journal entry are void |
| Whether the trial court could dismiss appellants’ cross-claim on July 7, 2016 while the Ohio Supreme Court appeal was pending | Black supported dismissal based on discovery failures | Appellants argued dismissal occurred during the pendency of their appeal and was therefore void | Court: July 7 dismissal was void because it was inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction while appeal was pending |
| Whether appellants’ failure to appear or notify the trial court of the Supreme Court appeal affects jurisdiction | Black argued appellants’ conduct (nonappearance, delay) justified proceeding | Appellants argued notice effects on docketing did not change that an appeal was perfected | Court: Even if appellants engaged in questionable conduct, once appeals were perfected the trial court was required to stay proceedings; lack of notice to the trial court does not validate actions taken during the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 950 N.E.2d 149 (Ohio 2011) (filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with the appellate court’s jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Rock v. School Emps. Retirement Bd., 772 N.E.2d 1197 (Ohio 2002) (once an appeal is perfected, trial court lacks jurisdiction to act in ways that conflict with appellate jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 378 N.E.2d 162 (Ohio 1978) (trial court may only take actions in aid of an appeal after appeal is filed)