France v. Celebrezze, 2012 Ohio 2072

Background

France filed an amended verified complaint for a writ of prohibition against Judge Celebrezze.
France seeks to prevent Celebrezze from deciding custody issues in DR case DR-005733 under UCCJEA.
Ohio appellate court applies a three-part prohibition test requiring (1) imminent judicial power, (2) power not authorized by law, (3) no adequate remedy.
Court finds Judge Celebrezze has general subject-matter jurisdiction over domestic relations matters.
Court holds France has an adequate remedy at law, including a pending UCCJEA jurisdiction hearing and appeal rights.
Filing a writ does not automatically stay the underlying action; jurisdiction to proceed remains unless stayed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Celebrezze lacks jurisdiction to proceed	France argues UCCJEA prevents decision without jurisdiction hearing.	Celebrezze has general jurisdiction to determine custody issues.	No patent lack of jurisdiction; Celebrezze has jurisdiction.
Whether France has an adequate remedy at law	France should be barred by prohibition due to attempted interference.	Adequate remedies exist via hearing and subsequent appeal.	France has adequate remedies at law.
Whether prohibition is appropriate when remedies exist and jurisdiction is present	Prohibition should bar improper jurisdiction.	Remedies and jurisdiction allow ordinary-law relief via appeal.	Prohibition not appropriate; remedy exists and jurisdiction is present.
Effect of filing a writ on the underlying action	Filing writ divests Celebrezze of jurisdiction.	Filing does not automatically stay proceedings.	Writ filing does not automatically stay the action.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (1989) (three-part prohibition test and adequacy of remedies)
State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad, 65 Ohio St.2d 68 (1981) (adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law prohibits prohibition)
State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. City of Berea, 7 Ohio St.2d 85 (1966) (adequate remedy principle)
State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (1941) (prohibition limits and jurisdictional reach)
State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64 (1950) (caution in issuing prohibition)
State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273 (1940) (prohibition to cure doubtful cases)
State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174 (1988) (patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction allows prohibition)
State ex rel. Csank v. Jaffe, 107 Ohio App.3d 387 (1995) (jurisdiction challenges and remedies)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (1997) (general jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Enyart v. O’Neill, 71 Ohio St.3d 655 (1995) (courts determination of own jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Hughley v. McMonagle, 121 Ohio St.3d 536 (2009) (adequate remedies by appeal)
State ex rel. Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440 (2005) (remedies by appeal)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (prohibition and stay considerations)
Marsh v. Goldthorpe, 123 Ohio St. 103 (1930) (avoidance of stay of underlying action)
Gochenour v. Herderick, 99 Ohio App. 27 (1954) (nontimely or improper stay considerations)