THE STATE EX REL. AMES, APPELLANT, v. SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES.
No. 2019-0704
Supreme Court of Ohio
February 6, 2020
2020-Ohio-354
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-354.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Reаders are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-354
THE STATE EX REL. AMES, APPELLANT, v. SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Ames v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Oрinion No. 2020-Ohio-354.]
Prohibition—Decision on whether trial court had authority to reinstate case that has been dismissed would result in purely advisory oрinion—Appeal dismissed as moot.
(No. 2019-0704—Submitted October 22, 2019—Decided February 6, 2020.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 29311.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Clarisa J. Amеs, appeals the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her petition for a writ of prohibition against appellees, Summit County Court of Cоmmon Pleas and Judge Mary Margaret Rowlands. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that this cause is moot and therefore dismiss the appeal.
Background
{¶ 2} In October 2017, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 (“National Collegiate“) filed a civil action against
{¶ 3} Ames thereafter filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Ninth District Court of Appeals against Judge Rowlands and the Summit County Court of Common Pleas (collectively, “Judge Rowlands“). Ames alleged that Judge Rowlands had lacked jurisdiction to issue the November 2018 order reinstating the casе and extending the time for service beyond the one-year period provided for in
{¶ 4} Ames has appealed as of right. Judge Rowlands suggests that this appeal is moot because in July 2019, during the pendency of the appeal, she dismissed National Collegiate‘s case for a second time. The judge provided in her brief to this court a link to that dismissal order, which notes that although Ames had actively participated in the case since its reinstatement, National Collegiate never served her with its complaint—despite the judge‘s November 2018 order requiring National Collegiate to do so within 14 days. Judge Rowlands argues that this appeal is moot because “there is nothing for this Court to prohibit.”
Analysis
{¶ 5} Courts generally may not rely on evidence or allegations outside the complaint when reviewing а lower court‘s dismissal under
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we havе considered trial-court entries—attached either to a motion to dismiss or to a merit brief in a direct appeal of a
{¶ 7} Here, both parties acknowledge that Judge Rowlands dismissed National Collegiate‘s case in July 2019, and Judge Rowlands provided a link to that dismissal order. Under these circumstances,
{¶ 8} ” ‘A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally сognizable interest in the outcome.’ ” State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728, ¶ 10-11, quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Because Ames seeks to prevent Judge Rowlands from exercising jurisdiction in a now dismissed case, this writ action is no longer “live.” And although under certain circumstances а writ of prohibition may be granted to prevent the future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to “correct the results of previously jurisdictionally unauthorized actions,” State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Reed, 99 Ohio St.3d 106, 2003-Ohio-2506, 789 N.E.2d 203, ¶ 14, this appeal may not continue solely to determine whether Judge Rоwlands had jurisdiction to issue the November 2018 order reinstating the underlying case. Here, a decision on whether a trial court had authority to rеinstate a case that has since been dismissed would result in a purely advisory opinion.
{¶ 9} Ames argues that this appeal is not moot because Judge Rowlands dismissed the underlying case without prejudice, and Ames fears that Judge Rowlands may again reinstate the civil action and thеreby force Ames to initiate another prohibition case. Although she has not expressly raised it, Ames appears to be invoking the “сapable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. This exception applies
only in exceptional circumstances in which the following two factors are both present: (1) the challenged action is too short in its duration to be fully litigated before its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same сomplaining party will be subject to the same action again.
State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229, 231, 729 N.E.2d 1182 (2000).
{¶ 10} Ames has not established either prong of the exception. She has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Judge Rowlands will again grant a
{¶ 11} For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Appeal dismissed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
Clarisa J. Ames, pro se.
Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Colleen Sims, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.