2011 Ohio 6439
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Capital One filed prohibition and mandamus against Judge Karner to stop sanctions and to vacate the October 13, 2010 order in Feinerer v. Feinerer.
- Relator argued Capital One, as a non-party, non-domiciliary, was beyond the subpoena power and improperly served.
- Subpoenas were issued via CSC to Capital One and Capital One Services, Inc.; CSC rejected service for Capital One and forwarded to related Capital One Services, LLC.
- Judge granted the motion to compel on October 13, 2010; Capital One learned of it November 9, 2010 and appeared to contest jurisdiction November 17, 2010.
- April 1, 2011 journal entry vacated the order and reserved sanctions/fees for a final hearing; Capital One sought writs to stay proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Capital One properly served and subject to sanctions? | Capital One | Karner | Service valid; sanctions proper to adjudicate |
| Did the court lack subject matter or territorial jurisdiction to compel Cap One to respond? | Capital One | Karner | The court has subject matter and territorial jurisdiction |
| Is mandamus/prohibition appropriate to vacate the sanctions order? | Capital One | Karner | Writs properly dismissed; remedy exists via ordinary appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1989) (prohibition prerequisites; jurisdictional inquiry)
- State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke County, 153 Ohio St. 64 (Ohio 1950) (prohibition scope and caution in extraordinary writs)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 543 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2004) (distinction between subject-matter and personal jurisdiction in federal context)
- State ex rel. Suburban Constr. Co. v. Skok, 85 Ohio St.3d 645 (Ohio 1999) (extremely rare personal jurisdiction issues; writs)
- State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 100 Ohio App.3d 592 (Ohio 1995) (inherent powers of courts and authority to enforce process)