State ex rel. Samarghandi v. Ferenc (Slip Opinion), 77 N.E.3d 950

Reed, a shareholder, sued appellants (fellow shareholders) in 2010 for breach of a shareholders’ agreement; he sought money damages.
At a 2013 jury trial, the trial court granted Reed a directed verdict and awarded money damages, apportioning liability among appellants.
The Twelfth District reversed, holding the complaint sought specific performance (an equitable remedy) and that appellants were improperly denied the chance to present equitable defenses; the cause was remanded.
On remand, Judge Ferenc denied appellants’ belated motion for leave to amend their answer and counterclaim and struck their jury demand as inapplicable because Reed’s claim was predominantly equitable.
Appellants sought a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals to prevent the trial judge from proceeding without allowing amendment and a jury trial; the appellate court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (appellants)	Defendant's Argument (judge/Reed)	Held
Whether prohibition should issue to prevent trial judge from denying leave to amend pleadings after remand	Denial of leave to amend prevented them from asserting equitable defenses after the appellate court recharacterized the claim	Trial court has discretion on timely amendment; denial is within judicial power	Denied: refusal to allow amendment is not beyond judicial power and is reviewable on appeal
Whether prohibition should issue to compel a jury trial	Appellants argued they retained a jury right and were wrongly stripped of it	Reed/trial judge argued the relief sought is predominantly equitable so no jury right	Denied: determination whether a right to jury exists is a trial-court determination and not grounds for prohibition
Whether prohibition is appropriate to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment	Appellants contended an erroneous pretrial ruling will force them into costly additional trials and appeals	Judge/Reed contended appellate review after final judgment is adequate	Denied: prohibition will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment; appeal is adequate remedy
Whether expense and delay make appeal inadequate	Appellants argued costs and delay render appeal inadequate	Court maintained expense/inconvenience do not make appeal inadequate	Denied: cost and inconvenience do not negate adequacy of appellate remedy

State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (standards for extraordinary-writ relief)
State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24 (2011) (extraordinary-writ elements)
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998) (prohibition will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment)
State ex rel. Casey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 61 Ohio St.3d 429 (1991) (expense and inconvenience do not make appeal an inadequate remedy)
Wilmington Steel Prods., Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120 (1991) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of motion to amend pleadings)