2022 Ohio 2589
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Will Woods bought property (5555 Turney Road) at a sheriff’s sale following a tax-foreclosure (Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-15-854600) and sought a writ of restitution in a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action in Garfield Heights M.C. No. CVG2201180.
- Defendants in the foreclosure filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in the common pleas court and asked the municipal judge to stay the FED pending resolution of that motion.
- Judge Sergio I. DiGeronimo granted a stay on June 10, 2022; Woods then filed original actions in the Eighth District seeking writs of procedendo or prohibition to compel or restrain the judge.
- The Eighth District issued an alternative writ on June 16 directing the judge to proceed or show cause; the judge later lifted the stay and, by journal entry dated June 28, 2022, ordered the clerk to issue a writ of restitution to Woods.
- The respondent moved to dismiss as moot; the court considered whether extrinsic/public docket evidence could be considered for mootness and whether prohibition was appropriate, and ultimately dismissed Woods’s complaints as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedendo should issue to compel the municipal judge to proceed | Woods: judge unlawfully stayed FED and must be ordered to proceed | Judge: stay has been lifted and writ of restitution ordered; relief already provided | Moot — procedendo cannot order performance of an act already performed; relief satisfied |
| Whether prohibition should issue to bar the judge from considering filings in the common pleas case | Woods: judge lacked authority to take notice of or be influenced by pleadings in the common pleas case | Judge: he acted within authority; any error does not amount to lack of jurisdiction | Denied — judge did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction; prohibition not available to correct intra-jurisdictional error |
| Whether the action is moot after the lift of the stay and issuance of writ of restitution | Woods: action remains live because judge’s prior conduct and reasoning were erroneous and could recur | Judge: the requested relief (lifting stay and issuing writ) has been granted, rendering the petition moot | Moot — the requested relief was granted; nothing left to order |
| Whether the court may consider municipal court journal entries/other extrinsic materials in ruling on mootness | Woods: appellate court cannot consider unauthenticated journal entries attached to motion to dismiss | Judge: courts may consider publicly available docket entries/extrinsic evidence when deciding mootness | Court may consider publicly available docket/journal entries for mootness; use of the June 28 entry was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 174 N.E.3d 744 (Ohio 2021) (procedendo standards; requirement of clear right and duty)
- State ex rel. White v. Woods, 130 N.E.3d 271 (Ohio 2019) (procedendo prerequisites and standards)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 21 N.E.3d 303 (Ohio 2014) (procedendo elements requiring no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 658 N.E.2d 273 (Ohio 1996) (procedendo cannot order performance already done)
- State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, 188 N.E.3d 150 (Ohio 2021) (procedendo mootness when court has proceeded to judgment)
- State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 146 N.E.3d 573 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts may examine extrinsic evidence to decide mootness)
- State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 874 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio 2007) (judicial notice of publicly available docket filings in original actions)
- State ex rel. Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kontos, 47 N.E.3d 133 (Ohio 2015) (adequate remedy by appeal precludes prohibition)