State ex rel. E.M. v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 1178

Relator E.M. is a party in a divorce case set for trial on April 1, 2022, in Cuyahoga C.P. No. DR-19-376298.
E.M. moved to continue on March 25, 2022 (supplemented March 28), asserting his counsel was in day eight of a Geauga County trial that had been scheduled earlier (July 9, 2021).
The trial court issued a judgment entry on March 29, 2022 denying the continuance; the entry was signed by the magistrate and respondent Judge Tonya R. Jones.
E.M. sought a peremptory writ of mandamus asking the appeals court to order the judge to continue the April 1 trial, relying principally on Sup.R. 41(B)(1) (priority to the earlier-set case).
The court denied relief, reasoning Sup.R. 41 requires a continuance motion based on conflicting trial dates to be filed with a copy of the conflicting assignment at least 30 days before trial; E.M.’s motion was filed seven days before trial.
The court also explained magistrates may issue non-dispositive orders under Civ.R. 53(D)(2) that are effective without judicial adoption, and E.M. did not file a motion to set aside any magistrate order; mandamus cannot control discretionary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent had a clear legal duty under Sup.R. 41 to continue the April 1 trial because counsel had an earlier-set trial	E.M.: Sup.R. 41(B)(1) mandates that the earlier-set trial have priority, so the later trial must be continued	Respondent: Sup.R. 41 also requires the motion to attach the conflicting assignment and be filed at least 30 days before trial; E.M.’s motion was untimely	Denied — no clear legal duty; motion was untimely under Sup.R. 41 and judge had discretion to deny it
Whether signing a judgment entry (magistrate + judge) without separate judicial review deprived E.M. of review warranting mandamus	E.M.: Judge merely rubber-stamped the magistrate and failed to properly review, so mandamus is required	Respondent: Magistrates can issue non-dispositive orders under Civ.R. 53(D)(2) that take effect without judicial adoption; aggrieved party may move to set aside; no such motion was filed	Denied — magistrate orders regulating proceedings may be effective without adoption; no timely motion to set aside and mandamus does not control discretion

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (elements and burden to obtain a writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Cleveland Right to Life v. State Controlling Bd., 138 Ohio St.3d 57, 3 N.E.3d 185 (Ohio 2013) (mandamus burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 31 N.E.3d 608 (Ohio 2014) (standard that relator must establish entitlement on the face of the complaint)
In re Administrative Actions, 162 Ohio St.3d 1407, 165 N.E.3d 322 (Ohio 2021) (Ohio Rules of Superintendence generally do not create substantive rights)
Touche Ross & Co. v. Landskroner, 20 Ohio App.3d 354, 486 N.E.2d 850 (8th Dist. 1984) (trial court did not abuse discretion denying untimely continuance where counsel knew of conflict more than a month before trial)
Alex N. Sill Co. v. Fazio, 2 Ohio App.3d 65, 440 N.E.2d 807 (8th Dist. 1981) (party has duty to move for continuance for conflicting trial dates within a reasonable time)