Hughes v. Calabrese
| Decision Date | 22 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-1890.,2001-1890. |
| Citation | 95 Ohio St.3d 334,767 NE 2d 725 |
| Parties | HUGHES, APPELLANT, v. CALABRESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Percy Squire Co., L.L.C., Percy Squire and Lloyd Pierre-Louis, for appellant.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Martin J. Hughes, Jr., is the president, director of operations, and a trustee of Union Eye Care ("UEC"), an Ohio not-for-profit corporation located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. UEC provides vision care at a discounted rate to union members and their families, union retirees, and the general public.
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2001, two members of the UEC board of trustees filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against Hughes and UEC. These trustees alleged that UEC, while under the management and control of Hughes, in his capacity as its president and director of operations, had engaged in questionable financial and nonfinancial transactions over a period of five years. These alleged transactions included personal expenditures unrelated to the business of UEC paid by Hughes from the assets of UEC. After Hughes failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these transactions, the board of trustees passed a resolution ordering an audit of UEC for the last five years. Under the resolution, the board also ordered that Hughes be placed on leave of absence, that he be relieved of all of his duties without remuneration or benefits, that he vacate the offices of UEC, and that he turn over all business records and property in his possession for completion of the audit, until completion of the audit and further order of the board. The board, relying on its code of regulations, ordered that one of the vice-presidents assume the responsibilities of Hughes's positions as president and director of operations. Hughes refused to comply with the board's directives.
{¶ 3} In their complaint, the trustees requested that the common pleas court issue injunctive relief to restrain Hughes from, among other things, exercising any duties or authority as a trustee, member of the executive committee, president, director of operations, or an employee, agent, or representative of UEC. The trustees also requested damages.
{¶ 4} Hughes filed a motion to dismiss the common pleas court action, claiming that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Hughes also filed a grievance with his union protesting his purported termination as an officer and trustee of UEC.
{¶ 5} On March 1, 2001, respondent, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Anthony O. Calabrese, Jr., granted the trustees a temporary restraining order that enjoined Hughes from (1) exercising any duties or authority as president, director of operations, employee, or agent of UEC; (2) trespassing on UEC property; (3) removing records or other property from UEC; (4) destroying records or other property of UEC; (5) refusing to return all property of UEC; (6) using any assets or other property of UEC without the express written consent of the board of trustees; and (7) engaging in any conduct that obstructs the audit, the authority of the board, or the business of UEC.
{¶ 6} On March 2, 2001, Hughes filed a complaint in this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Calabrese from proceeding with the underlying case. Hughes claimed that Judge Calabrese lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant an ouster in an action involving an Ohio not-for-profit corporation and that the trustees' case was not cognizable in the common pleas court before the exhaustion of the internal grievance procedure.
{¶ 7} On March 14, 2001, the parties in the underlying case stipulated to an extension of the March 1 temporary restraining order until March 28, 2001. On that date, Judge Calabrese issued a preliminary injunction against Hughes to prevent him from doing the same things that had been forbidden by the temporary restraining order.
{¶ 8} On April 4, 2001, we dismissed Hughes's prohibition action pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5). Hughes v. Calabrese (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1486, 745 N.E.2d 434. Our entry dismissing Hughes's prohibition action did not specify that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. On June 6, 2001, we denied Hughes's motion for reconsideration. Hughes v. Calabrese (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 1419, 748 N.E.2d 550.
{¶ 9} On July 30, 2001, Hughes filed a second complaint for a writ of prohibition, this time in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Hughes requested a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Calabrese from exercising further jurisdiction in the underlying case. Hughes again claimed that Judge Calabrese lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue a judgment of ouster in an action involving an Ohio not-for-profit corporation and that an action involving the wrongful termination of a union employee is not cognizable in a common pleas court before the exhaustion of internal grievance procedures. Hughes further claimed that Judge Calabrese's March 28, 2001 preliminary injunction was entered without prior notice of the time of the hearing. Judge Calabrese moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that our court's dismissal of Hughes's first prohibition action barred his second prohibition action based on res judicata.
{¶ 10} On October 11, 2001, the court of appeals granted Judge Calabrese's motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.
{¶ 11} In his appeal as of right, Hughes challenges the court of appeals' denial of his request for extraordinary relief in prohibition. Hughes's claims are meritless.
{¶ 12} First, res judicata bars Hughes's successive prohibition action. Under the doctrine of res judicata, "`a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.'" Kelm v. Kelm (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 223, 227, 749 N.E.2d 299, quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus. Res judicata bars the litigation of all claims that either were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit. Id.
{¶ 13} Our judgment dismissing Hughes's first prohibition action barred Hughes's second prohibition action, which raised claims that either were or might have been raised in his first action. S.Ct.Prac.R. X(2) provides that original actions other than habeas corpus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pappas v. O'brien
...apprised ahead of time, mother definitely had adequate notice to file an appeal. See Hughes v. Calabrese, 2002–Ohio–2217, ¶ 14, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 767 N.E.2d 725 (holding that collateral attack based on inadequate notice was unavailable because “this claim is usually raised by appeal” and t......
-
State ex rel. Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2006-2056.
..."Res judicata bars the litigation of all claims that either were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit." Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ {¶ 55} Here, however, it is evident that the contempt action did not determine the issue of Municipal ......
-
Bonner v. Delp
...or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Hughes v. Calabrese , 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12. An action will be barred by res judicata where a court finds the following four factors: "(1) a prio......
-
The State Ex Rel. Hamilton County Bd. Of Comm'rs v. Hamilton County Court Of Common Pleas
...relief in prohibition is not available to raise claims of lack of notice of the hearing or of the judgment. See Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 14; State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 103 Ohio St.3d 166, 2004-Ohio-4756, 814 N.E.2d 865, ¶ 5. {¶ 36} Final......