State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo
131 Ohio St. 3d 137
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Engelhart sought writs of prohibition and mandamus against Judge Russo to stop further proceedings and to reinstate Engelhart’s voluntary dismissal in a mandamus action.
- Judge Russo granted summary judgment for the school district on Jan 12, 2011, with journal entry transmitted to the Clerk that day and docket updates made.
- Engelhart filed a Civ.R. 41(A)(1) notice of dismissal at 3:48 p.m. on Jan 12, 2011, before the journal entry was entered on the clerk’s journal.
- A deputy clerk later stamped the journal entry as received for filing at 4:05 p.m. on Jan 12, 2011, after Engelhart’s dismissal filing.
- Judge Russo struck the dismissal and held the summary judgment final on the merits in a Jan 25, 2011 order and later sanctioned Engelhart’s attorney.
- The court of appeals denied the writs; the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed in part, holding the dismissal timing affected jurisdiction and that summary judgment was not effectively entered until after the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did filing of the notice of dismissal before journalization divest the court of jurisdiction? | Engelhart argues dismissal before journalization rendered the summary judgment ineffective and protected further proceedings. | Russo argues dismissal after the ruling is ineffective and does not divest jurisdiction. | Yes; dismissal before journalization divested jurisdiction and barred further proceedings. |
| May the court compel vacating the dismissal order and reinstate the dismissal when journalization occurs after dismissal? | Engelhart seeks mandamus to reinstate dismissal and vacate the strike and related orders. | Russo contends she acted within jurisdiction and the dismissal may be struck for improper timing. | Writs granted to the extent of vacating summary judgment entry and reinstating dismissal; collateral contempt orders affirmed. |
| Are collateral contempt orders reviewable when a Civ.R. 41 dismissal occurred? | Engelhart challenges contempt sanctions arising after dismissal. | Contempt issues may be adjudicated despite dismissal, with adequate appellate remedy. | Collateral contempt rulings are not improper; appeal lies separately for sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 2002) (prohibition/mandamus when trial court lacks jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 2002) (dismissal/patent lack of jurisdiction after Civ.R. 41(A)(1) dismissal)
- Fifth Third Mortgage Co. v. Russo, 129 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2011) (notice of dismissal effective upon filing; journalization timing matters)
- Blair v. Boye-Doe, 157 Ohio App.3d 17 (Ohio App. 2004) (notice of voluntary dismissal after entry of judgment is nullity)
- Selker & Furber v. Brightman, 138 Ohio App.3d 710 (Ohio App. 2000) (notice of dismissal effect and self-executing termination of merits)