State ex rel. Striker v. Cline
130 Ohio St. 3d 214
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Striker, pro se, sought mandamus to compel Shelby city and clerk to provide public records under R.C. 149.43.
- Mazanec law firm appeared for clerk and city; Striker challenged their representation as unauthorized.
- Court of Appeals denied Striker’s challenges; Striker repeatedly relitigated the same issue in subsequent motions and briefs.
- Court of Appeals awarded clerk $3,503 in attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 for frivolous conduct; fees largely borne by insurer.
- Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, holding sanctions proper and fees reasonable; addressed timeliness of appeal on related mandamus claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sanctions award under R.C. 2323.51 was proper | Striker argues no frivolous conduct occurred | Clerk contends repeated, baseless relitigation justified sanctions | Sanctions properly awarded; abuse of discretion standard met |
| Whether $3,503 in fees was reasonable given insurer payment | Only $312 was paid by city, so award excessive | Total reasonable fees incurred were $3,503; insurer may recoup sanctions | Award of $3,503 reasonable; insurer can recoup sanctioned costs |
| Whether Striker’s repeated challenge to representation constituted frivolous conduct | Issue had merit or potential for extension of law | Repeatedly relitigating after denial constituted frivolous conduct | Yes; conduct frivolous under R.C. 2323.51 |
| Whether the public-records mandamus claims are properly before the Court | Appeal timely from March 4, 2011 ruling supports review | June 21, 2010 ruling was final and not timely appealed | Court lacked jurisdiction to review June 21, 2010 judgment; affirm dismissal for lack of timely appeal on those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss v. Bush, 105 Ohio St.3d 458 (2005-Ohio-2419) (sanctions for frivolous conduct opportunity in civil actions)
- State ex rel. Ohio Dept. of Health v. Sowald, 65 Ohio St.3d 338 (1992) (authority for awarding attorney fees in sanctions)
- Ron Scheiderer & Assoc. v. London, 81 Ohio St.3d 94 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions decisions)
- Mid-Ohio Mechanical, Inc. v. Eisenmann Corp., 2009-Ohio-5804 (Guernsey App.) (repeated frivolous filings support sanctions)
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (statutory construction to avoid absurd results in sanctions)
- Sopp v. Turner, 2010-Ohio-4021 (Franklin App.) (appellate review of sanctions decision under abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Resources for Healthy Living, Inc. v. Haslinger, Wood, 2011-Ohio-1978 (App. No. WD-10-073) (sanctions and related fee considerations)
- Sawicki v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 121 Ohio St.3d 507 (2009-Ohio-1523) (rules governing appeals to Supreme Court)
- Cydrus v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 127 Ohio St.3d 257 (2010-Ohio-5770) (objective standard for frivolous-conduct sanctions)
- Stafford v. Columbus Bonding Ctr., 177 Ohio App.3d 799 (2008-Ohio-3948) (objective standard in sanctions determinations)