State ex rel. Welt v. Doherty (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3124

In 2008 Dodeka, L.L.C. (represented by attorney Richard Welt) sued Cindy Keith in municipal court for $10,964.56; Keith filed counterclaims and third-party claims impleading Welt alleging fraud and consumer-protection violations.
Because Keith’s counterclaims sought more than the municipal court’s jurisdictional limit, the case was transferred to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.
Dodeka filed an amended complaint; when Keith answered the amended complaint she did not restate her earlier counterclaims or her third-party claims against Welt.
The trial court initially granted summary judgment dismissing Dodeka’s claim and Welt’s third-party exposure, but the court of appeals reversed as to the counterclaims and third-party claims and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand Judge Doherty granted summary judgment for Dodeka on the counterclaims and denied Welt’s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on the third-party claims, concluding Keith had not forfeited those claims by failing to replead.
Welt sought writs of prohibition and mandamus in the court of appeals; the court dismissed both petitions. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: prohibition denied because the alleged forfeiture did not affect subject-matter jurisdiction; mandamus denied because Welt has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Keith’s third-party claims because she did not replead them when answering the amended complaint	Welt: Keith’s failure to replead forfeited the claims; without a pending complaint the court lacks jurisdiction	Doherty: Failure to replead is a pleading/procedural defect; the claims remained pending and subject-matter jurisdiction is unaffected	Court: Forfeiture is a procedural/pleading issue that does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction; prohibition denied
Whether mandamus should issue to compel dismissal of the third-party claims because Judge Doherty had a clear legal duty and there was no adequate remedy at law	Welt: Judge had a clear duty to dismiss and no adequate remedy exists	Doherty: An adequate remedy exists—appeal from any final adverse judgment	Court: Mandamus denied because an adequate remedy at law exists (appeal)

State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 1995) (unconditional dismissal removes trial-court jurisdiction; supports prohibition in limited dismissal circumstances)
Page v. Riley, 85 Ohio St.3d 621 (Ohio 1999) (prohibition ordinarily lies where case has been dismissed)
Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 2002) (same principle regarding lack of jurisdiction after dismissal)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 2014) (distinguishes subject-matter jurisdiction from jurisdiction over a particular case)
State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2020) (courts may affirm on alternative grounds and may take notice of related dockets)
State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264 (Ohio 2008) (where no patent lack of jurisdiction exists, remedy is by appeal)
State ex rel. Phelps v. McClelland, 159 Ohio St.3d 184 (Ohio 2020) (mandamus inappropriate when adequate legal remedies exist)
Non-Employees of Chateau Estates Resident Assn. v. Kessler, 107 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2005) (direct appeal constitutes an adequate remedy in mandamus contexts)
State ex rel. Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307 (Ohio 2011) (standard for dismissing prohibition complaints under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))