State ex rel. Covington v. Lynch
2021 Ohio 2083
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Relator Venesia A. Covington filed an original action in the Tenth District seeking a writ of procedendo to compel judges of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to act in her cases (Franklin C.P. Nos. 20CV-6393, 20CV-6394, 20CV-6500).
- Covington moved for a default judgment in 20CV-6500 on Nov. 8, 2020; some defendants had already filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (arguing the Court of Claims was proper venue).
- The common pleas court entered a consolidation order (Dec. 14, 2020) combining the three cases and assigning them to Judge Young; multiple judges subsequently were asked to recuse because one judge was named as a defendant in a related case.
- Docket entries reflect transfers, recusals, and the Chief Justice’s assignment of retired judges to sit by assignment in the affected cases.
- Covington filed contemporaneous attempts to appeal the consolidation order to the Tenth District; those filings were dismissed as insufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
- Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the magistrate recommended dismissal, and the Tenth District adopted the recommendation and denied the writ of procedendo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo may compel the trial court to deconsolidate consolidated cases | Covington seeks an order requiring the common pleas court to deconsolidate her cases | Procedendo cannot control what judgment a lower court should enter; it only compels a court to proceed to judgment | Denied — procedendo cannot be used to force deconsolidation or control the substance of judgments |
| Whether delay in ruling on Covington’s motion for default judgment amounted to unreasonable delay justifying procedendo | Covington contends the court’s failure to rule on her default motion is undue delay | Respondents show responsive pleadings were filed and recusals/reassignments and interlocutory appellate filings made the interval reasonable | Denied — record shows no refusal or unreasonable delay warranting procedendo |
| Whether procedendo can compel performance of an act already completed (mootness) | Covington challenges past consolidation action | Respondents assert a writ will not compel performance of duties already performed | Dismissed as moot on that point — procedendo will not compel past acts |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements for writ of procedendo: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33 (1995) (procedendo remedies refusal or failure to timely dispose of a pending action)
- State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (procedendo purpose and limits)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (procedendo does not control what judgment should be entered)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (Civ.R.12(B)(6) tests complaint sufficiency)
- Assn. for the Defense of the Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116 (1989) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R.12(B)(6))
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (inferential treatment of complaint allegations on motion to dismiss)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard that dismissal requires showing no set of facts entitling plaintiff to relief)
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party on 12(B)(6))
- Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co. L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 (2009) (court need not accept conclusory legal propositions)
- State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill, 147 Ohio St.3d 402 (2016) (context can render a period between filing and disposition reasonable)
- State ex rel. Hibbler v. O'Neill, 159 Ohio St.3d 566 (2020) (appellate courts may take judicial notice of lower-court records)
- State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 145 Ohio St.3d 92 (2015) (use of judicial notice for court records)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (judicial notice of court records in original actions)
- State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (procedendo will not compel performance of duties already performed)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Doneghy, 102 Ohio St.3d 355 (2004) (procedendo remedy limitations)