State Ex Rel. Bridge v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

2012 Ohio 3327

Ohio

2012

Check Treatment

THE STATE EX REL. BRIDGE, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES.

No. 2012-0206

Supreme Court of Ohio

July 25, 2012

132 Ohio St.3d 494, 2012-Ohio-3327

Submitted July 11, 2012

Zeiger, Tigges & Little, L.L.P., Marion H. Little Jr., and Christopher J. Hogan, for relators.

Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent, Judge William H. Wolff.

Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and Martin G. Weinberg, for intervening respondent Anthony M. Cafaro Sr.

Walter & Haverfield, L.L.P., Ralph E. Cascarilla, Darrell A. Clay, and Leslie G. Wolfe, for intervening respondent the Cafaro Company.

McLaughlin & McCaffrey, L.L.P., John F. McCaffrey, and Anthony R. Petruzzi, for intervening respondents Ohio Valley Mall Company and Marion Plaza, Inc.

Johnson, Bruzzese & Temple and J. Alan Johnson, for intervening respondent Flora Cafaro.

Lucy A. Dalglish, urging granting of the writs for amicus curiae, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, William W. Bridge III, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellees, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Richard S. Sheward, from exercising jurisdiction in Speeds Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Nations Constr., L.L.C., Franklin C.P. No. 07 CVH–07–9820.

{¶ 2} Appellees do not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction in the underlying case, which was transferred to the common pleas court by the Franklin County Municipal Court. “[W]ithout a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court possessed of general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.” State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 19. The municipal court was under no duty to dismiss the small-claims cases, which it subsequently transferred to the common pleas court, merely because the claims in the separate cases, when aggregated, exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the small-claims division of the municipal court. See R.C. 1925.02(A)(1) (“a small claims division established under section 1925.01 of the Revised Code has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of taxes and money only, for amounts not exceeding three thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs“). Thus, Bridge‘s reliance on State ex rel. Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 49 Ohio St.3d 49, 550 N.E.2d 941 (1990), and Lance Langan Water Jetting, Inc. v. Tiger Gen., Inc., 9th Dist. No. 05CA0018-M, 2005-Ohio-4541, 2005 WL 2087799, which each involved a single case that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over, is misplaced.

{¶ 3} Moreover, res judicata barred Bridge from filing a successive prohibition action when he could have raised his claims in his previous prohibition action. Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12.

{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly denied Bridge‘s claim for extraordinary relief in prohibition, and we affirm the court‘s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

William W. Bridge III, pro se.

Read the detailed case summary