State ex rel. Tauwab v. Ambrose
2012 Ohio 817
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Tauwab filed a prohibition action to stop Judge Ambrose from ruling on a motion to declare Tauwab a vexatious litigator in the underlying case CV-10-732900.
- Underlying case involves claims of trespass and conversion against multiple defendants in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.
- Defendants filed a motion for sanctions and to deem Tauwab a vexatious litigator; hearing was set for October 28, 2011, but was cancelled upon Tauwab’s prohibition action.
- R.C. 2323.52 permits a civil action to declare a vexatious litigator; Tauwab argued the motion approach was improper and void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the trial court had general jurisdiction, rejected the argument that a motion could not trigger jurisdiction, and found an adequate remedy at law via appeal.
- The prohibition petition was dismissed and the writ denied, with Tauwab ordered to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to declare a vexatious litigator, in a pending case, can vest jurisdiction in the trial court | Tauwab: motion method divests jurisdiction; requires a civil action under 2323.52 | Ambrose: trial court has jurisdiction under 2323.52 despite form of filing | Trial court has jurisdiction; motion form did not deprive jurisdiction |
| Whether Tauwab has an adequate remedy at law to warrant prohibition | Tauwab would have no adequate remedy if declared vexatious due to prohibition | Remedy via appeal is available post-declaration | Adequate remedy exists; prohibition denied |
| Whether the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over Tauwab for purposes of prohibition | Personal jurisdiction lacking because no civil action filed | Initiating the underlying action subjected Tauwab to jurisdiction | Personal jurisdiction exists; prohibition not cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (1989) (prohibition standards and lack of remedy considerations)
- Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64 (1950) (prohibition scope and cautionary use)
- Grundstein v. Greene, 2006-Ohio-2205 (8th Dist.) (challenge to vexatious-litigator ruling via prohibition)
- State ex rel. Suburban Constr. Co. v. Skok, 85 Ohio St.3d 645 (1999) (presence of jurisdiction and minimum contacts; prohibition scope limits)