CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND ET AL. v. RANDOLPH DAILEY, ET AL.
No. 108873
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, County of Cuyahoga
October 17, 2019
[Cite as Cleveland v. Dailey, 2019-Ohio-4267.]
Petition for Declaratory Judgment Motion No. 531014 Order No. 532156
JUDGMENT: PETITION DISMISSED
DATED: October 17, 2019
Appearances:
Willa M. Hemmons, Law Director City of East Cleveland, for petitioner.
Hilow & Spellacy LLC, Henry J. Hilow and Kevin Spellacy, for respondent.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J.:
{¶ 1} The city of East Cleveland has filed a “petition for deсlaratory judgment,” an action over which a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction. For
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On August 2, 2019, E. Cleveland filed a “petition for declaratory judgment,” naming itself, and in their official capacities, Law Director Willa Hemmons and Mayor Brandon L. King, as petitioners. The petition also named Dailey and Coleman as respondents. Dailey and Coleman were charged in underlying criminal casеs, E. Cleveland v. Dailey, East Cleveland M.C. 15 CRB 00623, and E. Cleveland v. Coleman, East Cleveland M.C. 15 CRB 00625. The petition alleges that during the trial in Coleman‘s case, the trial judge made evidentiary rulings contrary to East Cleveland‘s wishes. Coleman‘s case ended in a not guilty verdict. East Cleveland asserts that because it does not have a right to appeal these adverse evidentiary rulings, this declaratory judgment action is its only means of reviewing and correcting the trial court‘s evidentiary rulings for Dailey‘s upcoming trial.
{¶ 3} Coleman filed a timely motion to dismiss on August 12, 2019, claiming that she has no interest in this action, and requesting that sanctions be imposed against East Cleveland. Dailey filed an untimely motion to dismiss on September 6, 2019, which was accepted by this court.1 East Cleveland timely opposed the motions to dismiss.
A. Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment Actions
{¶ 4} A case may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when, construing all factual allegations in the complaint as true and all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief. Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 109 Ohio St.3d 491, 2006-Ohio-2625, 849 N.E.2d 268, ¶ 11, citing O‘Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975). Further, a court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannоt prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham, 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 231, 718 N.E.2d 1285 (1999). A lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte by the court at any stage in the proceedings. Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 238, 358 N.E.2d 536 (1976). There is no requirement that any of the parties raise the issue of whether a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction prior to examining the issue. Dorsey v. Ford Motor Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 75636, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2105 (May 18, 2000), citing Fox.
{¶ 6} The jurisdiction of а court of appeals to hear original actions is defined in the Ohio Constitution:
The courts of appeals shall have original jurisdiction in the following:
(a) Quo warranto;
(b) Mandamus;
(c) Habeas corpus;
(d) Prohibition;
(e) Procedendo;
(f) In any cause on review as may be necessary to its complete determination.
{¶ 7} The petition filed by East Cleveland does not fall within any of these categories of original actions. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the action.
{¶ 8} In its complaint, East Cleveland argues that
“Statutes which create a declaratory judgment procedure do not extend the jurisdiction of the subject matter of a court but rather extend the power of the court to grant declaratory relief within its respective
jurisdiction. In other words, declaratory judgment statutes provide an additional remedy which may be granted by a court but they do not extend the jurisdiction as to the subject matter upon which a court may act. San Ysidro Irrigation District v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 56 Cal. 2d 708, 365 P.2d 753, and 26 Corpus Juris Secundum 255, Declaratory Judgments, Section 113.” State, ex rel. Foreman, v. Bellefontaine Municipal Court (1967), 12 Ohio St. 2d 26, 28. Although R.C. 2721.02 gives all “courts of record” the рower to render declaratory judgments, the 1968 Modern Courts Amendment gives Court of Appeals original jurisdiction only in quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition, procedendo, and in any cause on review as may be necessary to its complete determination. Section 3(B)(1)(a)-(f), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. Permitting a Court of Appeals to givе what is basically a declaratory judgment is to expand its constitutionally declared jurisdiction.
State ex rel. Neer v. Indus. Comm., 53 Ohio St.2d 22, 23-24, 371 N.E.2d 842 (1978). See also Wright v. Ghee, 74 Ohio St.3d 465, 466, 659 N.E.2d 1261 (1996) (affirming the dismissal of an original action in the court of appeals because courts of appeals lack jurisdiction over a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunction).
{¶ 9} Moreover, if the allegations in a mandamus complaint indicate that the real object sought is a declaratory judgment, the complaint does not state a cause of action in mandamus because a court of appeаls does not have jurisdiction over claims for declaratory judgment. State ex rel. Beane v. Dayton, 112 Ohio St.3d 553, 2007-Ohio-811, 862 N.E.2d 97; State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assoc. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347, 2003-Ohio-6447, 800 N.E.2d 21.
{¶ 10} East Cleveland obviously cannot prevail in this action because this court lacks jurisdiction. We, sua sponte, dismiss East Cleveland‘s action as to all respondents for want of jurisdiction.
{¶ 11} Coleman asserts that making her a party to this action was done merely to harass. She seeks the awаrd of attorney fees as sanctions in this case. Dailey also requests sanctions in its motion to dismiss, claiming the action East Cleveland filed is frivolous. Coleman and Dailey do not citе to any specific rule or statute when making their requests for sanctions, nor did they request a hearing.
{¶ 12} There are several sources of authority for the imposition of sanctiоns.
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} Loc.App.R. 23(A) also provides for the award of sanctions in original actions for frivolous filings, or actions filed for thе purpose of delay, harassment, or other improper purpose. Those sanctions may include “an award to the opposing party of reasonable exрenses, reasonable attorney fees, costs or double costs, or any other sanction the Eighth District Court of Appeals considers just.”
{¶ 15} When determining whether sanctions are аppropriate a court must consider “whether the attorney or pro se party who signed the document: (1) read it; (2) to the best of his knowledge, had good grounds for filing it; and (3) did not file it fоr the purpose of delaying the proceedings” or for some other improper purpose. State ex rel. Bristow v. Baxter, 6th Dist. Erie Nos. E-17-060, E-17-067, E-17-070, 2018-Ohio-1973, ¶ 25 (addressing sanctions under
{¶ 16} Here, East Cleveland‘s petition evidences a negligent understanding of the jurisdiction of courts of appeals to entertain declaratory judgment actions, but does nоt evidence a willful or bad faith violation of
{¶ 17} However, the continued filing of actions that evidence a lack of understanding of the requirements for original actions in the court of appeals may result in sanctions under Loc.App.R. 23, up to and including a designation that the parties that commenced the present action are vexatious litigators.
{¶ 18} East Cleveland‘s petition for declaratory judgment is sua sponte dismissed. Respondents’ motions to dismiss are denied as moot. The requests for sanctions are denied. Costs to East Cleveland. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by
{¶ 19} Petition dismissed.
__________________________________
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, PRESIDING JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., and
EILLEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR