State ex rel. Moore v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
2016 Ohio 7227
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Relators Carl L. Moore, Sr. and Ronnie Moore (both pro se) sought a writ of prohibition and injunctive relief to stop eviction arising from Bank of America, N.A. v. Moore (Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-14-826343).
- Relators alleged lack of due process in removal from the property, improper withdrawal of counsel, and failure to join necessary parties in the foreclosure proceedings.
- Relators did not join Bank of America (the party awarded possession) as a party in the prohibition action; a writ of possession had already been issued and eviction occurred.
- The trial court ordered relators to show cause to join necessary parties under Civ.R. 19; relators failed to add parties or otherwise cure the defect.
- Respondents moved to dismiss on multiple grounds (failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction to issue an injunction, adequate remedies at law, lack of standing for Ronnie Moore, and mootness); the appellate court granted the motion and dismissed the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to join necessary/ interested party (Bank of America) | Relators did not dispute necessity; sought relief without joining Bank of America | Failure to join Bank of America is a jurisdictional defect that precludes relief | Case dismissed for failure to join an interested and necessary party under Civ.R. 19 |
| Mootness (eviction already occurred) | Sought stay to prevent eviction | Eviction already took place; relief therefore moot | Action held moot; dismissal appropriate |
| Writ of prohibition—requirements and adequacy of remedies | Relators argued prohibition/injunction appropriate to prevent alleged judicial error | Respondents argued court had jurisdiction over foreclosure and relators had adequate remedies (appeal, motions) | Writ denied: prohibition not available where court has jurisdiction over the subject or adequate legal remedies exist |
| Authority of court of appeals to grant injunction | Relators sought injunctive relief from this court | Court of appeals lacks original jurisdiction to grant prohibitory injunctions | Court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunction sought by relators |
| Standing of Ronnie Moore | Ronnie claimed he was a necessary/interested party | Ronnie was not a party in foreclosure; motion to intervene denied; lacked a personal interest and had available appellate remedies | Ronnie Moore lacks standing; cannot maintain the action |
Key Cases Cited
- McGinty v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 142 Ohio St.3d 100 (2015) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue a stay when subject-matter jurisdiction is absent)
- State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (1989) (elements required for writ of prohibition)
- State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (1941) (prohibition only when court clearly lacks jurisdiction or is about to exceed it)
- State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64 (1950) (writ will not issue to correct errors within a court’s jurisdiction or to substitute for appeal)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Trim, 145 Ohio St.3d 204 (2015) (court of appeals lacks original jurisdiction to grant prohibitory injunctions)
- State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576 (2001) (appeal from denial of intervention after final judgment is an adequate remedy that precludes extraordinary writ)
- Novak v. McFaul, (8th Dist.) (1999) (referenced for principle that appeals and motions provide adequate remedies)