State ex rel. Fire Rock, Ltd. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 673

Relator Fire Rock, Ltd., a Level II Ohio medical‑marijuana cultivator (up to 3,000 sq. ft.), applied on Feb. 1, 2020 to expand its Akron cultivation area, submitting plans, timeline, and sales data.
On June 24, 2020 the Ohio Department of Commerce replied it was "taking no action" because it had not solicited expansion requests; Fire Rock later demanded a definitive decision.
Fire Rock filed a mandamus complaint in the Ohio Supreme Court on Sept. 24, 2020 seeking an order compelling the department to approve or deny its expansion application.
The controlling rule is Ohio Adm.Code 3796:2-1-09: it permits the director to approve expansions at discretion, sets application requirements for cultivators, and states the department "shall have a reasonable time to review and approve or deny" upon receipt.
The department moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the rule requires action only when the director requests plans; Fire Rock argued the rule allows cultivator‑initiated applications and requires the department to act.
The Court found no material factual disputes, concluded the rule permits cultivator‑initiated applications and imposes a duty to approve or deny within a reasonable time, denied the department’s motion, and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a cultivator submit an expansion application on its own initiative?	Yes — rule permits cultivator submissions; nothing conditions application on a department request.	No — department contends expansion applications are only actionable when submitted in response to a director’s request.	Held: cultivator may apply on its own; "may" in division (D) is permissive.
Does the department have a duty to approve or deny a received expansion application?	Yes — Ohio Adm.Code 3796:2-1-09(C) requires the department, upon receipt, to review and approve or deny within a reasonable time.	No — department contends no duty arises absent a solicitation and stresses broad discretionary authority.	Held: the rule unambiguously imposes a duty to approve or deny after receipt.
Is mandamus unavailable because an adequate legal remedy exists?	No — no administrative procedure or appeal exists until the department issues an order; thus mandamus is appropriate.	Department did not identify an adequate alternative remedy.	Held: Fire Rock lacks an adequate remedy at law; mandamus is appropriate.
Was the department entitled to judgment on the pleadings?	Opposed — material issues are legal and the department’s theory is legally flawed.	Sought dismissal under Civ.R. 12(C) arguing entitlement as a matter of law.	Held: motion denied; legal issues resolved against the department and a peremptory writ granted.

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (standards for mandamus: clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 767 N.E.2d 719 (Ohio 2002) (an administrative rule can create a clear legal duty supporting mandamus)
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 664 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio 1996) (standards for judgment on the pleadings)
Spencer v. Freight Handlers, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 1030 (Ohio 2012) (text is the starting point for interpreting rules and statutes)
Fayetteville Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 438 N.E.2d 128 (Ohio 1982) (use of "may" is permissive, not mandatory)
Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 23 N.E.3d 1161 (Ohio 2014) (no deference to agency interpretation when rule text is unambiguous)
Provident Bank v. Wood, 304 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 1973) (interpretation ends when text is clear and definite)
State ex rel. Marchiano v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 902 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio 2009) (availability of administrative remedies can preclude mandamus)