State ex rel. Ames v. Reinbold, 2019 Ohio 1169

Relator Brian M. Ames filed two pro se petitions for writs of procedendo asking the court to order Portage County Common Pleas Judge Richard D. Reinbold, Jr. to rule on multiple motions in two civil cases against public entities (Case Nos. 2016 CV 00582 and 2017 CV 00226).
The petitions sought rulings on, among other things, motions for preliminary injunction, motions to exceed discovery limits, summary judgment motions, discovery objections, and motions to strike briefs filed between 2016–2018.
The appellate court consolidated the two original actions and the judge filed pro se motions to dismiss the petitions as moot, stating that on February 13, 2019 he had entered summary judgment for the public-entity defendants in both underlying civil cases.
Judge Reinbold did not attach the entries to his motions; Ames did not contest the judge’s representation that final judgments had been entered.
The court reviewed the law on writs of procedendo and noted that procedendo will not compel a duty already performed; if final judgment is entered, pending motions are presumed denied.
Because Ames did not dispute that final judgments had been entered, the court concluded the petitions were moot and dismissed them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ames was entitled to a writ of procedendo compelling Judge Reinbold to rule on specific pending motions	Ames argued the judge had failed or delayed ruling on listed motions and thus should be ordered to proceed to judgment	Reinbold stated he had already entered final judgment in the underlying cases, rendering further compulsion unnecessary	Denied — writ not warranted because final judgments were entered and the duty was performed (moot)
Whether petitions are moot where final judgment was entered after motions remained unresolved	Ames implicitly sought rulings on outstanding motions even after final judgment	Reinbold contended his February 13, 2019 entries granted summary judgment, implicitly resolving remaining motions	Moot — relator did not contest the judge’s representation; pending motions are presumed denied upon final judgment

State ex rel. Utley v. Abruzzo, 17 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (defines writ of procedendo as order to inferior court to proceed to judgment)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (elements required to obtain procedendo)
State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo appropriate when court refuses or unnecessarily delays entering judgment)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (procedendo will not compel a duty already performed)