State ex rel. Lloyd v. Wiest, 2023 Ohio 869

Relator Susan Lloyd filed a petition for a writ of procedendo asking the Ninth District to compel Judge Mark Wiest to rule on four postjudgment motions in her civil case (motion for summary judgment, motion for relief from judgment, motion for reconsideration, and motion to deny summary judgment).
The defendant in the underlying action moved for summary judgment; Judge Wiest granted that motion in early 2020.
Lloyd moved for relief from judgment; on October 15, 2020 Judge Wiest granted relief and set a timetable for Lloyd to respond and for the court to rule on the defendant’s summary-judgment motion.
A few hours after the October 15 order, Lloyd filed the four motions that form the basis of her procedendo petition.
On January 7, 2021 Judge Wiest entered judgment granting summary judgment for the defendant; the docket contains no separate orders expressly ruling on Lloyd’s four motions.
The court concluded that the entry of judgment implicitly overruled the pending motions; because procedendo will not require a vain act, Lloyd’s petition was moot and dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of procedendo should compel Judge Wiest to rule on Lloyd’s pending motions	Lloyd: judge has a clear duty to proceed and no adequate remedy exists; she seeks an order to obtain rulings on her motions	Wiest: the court already entered judgment (implicitly disposing of the motions); procedendo cannot compel a duty already performed	Denied — petition dismissed as moot because entry of judgment implicitly denied the motions
Whether entry of judgment implicitly overrules unresolved motions and moots a procedendo petition	Lloyd: motions remained unresolved and required explicit rulings	Wiest: when a court enters final judgment without ruling on pending motions, those motions are presumed overruled	Court held unresolved motions were implicitly overruled by the judgment and precedent supports deeming the claim moot

State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (2014) (procedendo elements: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (procedendo standard)
State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149 (2006) (procedendo appropriate for unreasonable delay or refusal to render judgment)
State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (procedendo will not compel performance of duties already performed)
State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227 (2000) (courts may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine mootness)
Georgeoff v. O’Brien, 105 Ohio App.3d 373 (1995) (presumption that an unresolved motion was overruled when court enters judgment)
State ex rel. Garnett v. Lyons, 44 Ohio St.2d 125 (1975) (writ will not compel a vain act)
State ex rel. Morenz v. Kerr, 104 Ohio St.3d 148 (2004) (procedendo dismissed as moot where writ would compel a vain act)