State ex rel. Red Head Brass, Inc. v. Holmes County Court of Common Pleas

• Decision Date: 22 October 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-2657,96-2657
• Citation: 80 Ohio St.3d 149,684 N.E.2d 1234
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. RED HEAD BRASS, INC., Appellant, v. HOLMES COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 149

80 Ohio St.3d 149

684 N.E.2d 1234

The STATE ex rel. RED HEAD BRASS, INC., Appellant, v. HOLMES COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al., Appellees.

No. 96-2657.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Aug. 26, 1997.

Decided Oct. 22, 1997.

Buckley, King & Bluso and John A. Hallbauer, Cleveland; Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnston, J. Douglas Drushal, Peggy J. Schmitz, Wooster, and Steven J. Schrock, Ann Arbor, MI, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Red Head contends that the court of appeals erred by denying the requested writ of prohibition. In its propositions of law, Red Head asserts that Judge White and the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to proceed in Eliot and MacMillan's Holmes County case because the jurisdictional priority rule vested exclusive jurisdiction over their claims in the previously filed Cuyahoga County case.

The jurisdictional priority rule provides that " '[a]s between [state] courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal whose power is first invoked by the institution of proper proceedings acquires jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other tribunals, to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to settle the rights of the parties.' " State ex rel. Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 54, 56, 17 OBR 45, 46, 476 N.E.2d 1060, 1062, quoting State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 279, 4 O.O.3d 445, 364 N.E.2d 33, syllabus. Generally, " 'it is a condition of the operation of the state jurisdictional priority rule that the claims or causes of action be the same in both cases.' " Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 120, 123, 656 N.E.2d 684, 688, quoting State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 647 N.E.2d 807, 809. Therefore, if the second case does not involve the same cause of action or the same parties, the first suit will normally not prevent the second case. Id.; State ex rel. Judson v. Spahr (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 515 N.E.2d 911, 913.

The Cuyahoga County and Holmes County cases involve different claims for relief and different parties. With the dismissal of Cullen from the Holmes County action, Eliot and MacMillan's claims alleged invasion of their personal privacy by Elum and Interfacts' unauthorized access to their personal financial records. By contrast, the Cuyahoga County case included only Eliot's personal claims against Red Head and other defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. Elum and Interfacts are not parties to the Cuyahoga County case. As specified by the court of appeals, the Holmes County case can be determined without resolution of the Cuyahoga County case.

Based on the foregoing, the jurisdictional priority rule does not patently and unambiguously divest Judge White and the Holmes County Common Pleas Court of jurisdiction over Eliot and MacMillan's remaining claims. We need not expressly rule on Red Head's jurisdictional contention because our review is restricted to whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking. State ex rel. Willacy...