State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. O'Donnell

• Decision Date: 13 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020-0972,2020-0972
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. O'DONNELL, Judge, et al.

163 Ohio St.3d 541

171 N.E.3d 321

The STATE EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

v.O'DONNELL, Judge, et al.

No. 2020-0972

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted January 12, 2021

Decided April 13, 2021.

Law Offices of Terrence J. Kenneally & Associates Co., Terrence J. Kenneally, and Sean M. Kenneally, Fairview Park, for relator.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jake A. Elliott, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Judge O'Donnell.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John P. O'Donnell from exercising jurisdiction over a civil action that was transferred from the Lyndhurst Municipal Court. State Farm also seeks writs of mandamus (1) ordering Judge O'Donnell to transfer the case back to the Lyndhurst Municipal Court and (2) ordering respondent Lyndhurst Municipal Court Judge Dominic J. Coletta to dismiss the case upon its return from the common pleas court. We grant writs of prohibition and mandamus as to Judge O'Donnell but deny the writ of mandamus as to Judge Coletta.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} In December 2018, Shelena Burke filed a complaint against State Farm and another defendant in the small-claims division of the Lyndhurst Municipal Court. Burke v. Mayfield Brainard Auto Servs., L.L.C. , Lyndhurst M.C. case No. 18CVI02765. Burke sought $6,000 in restitution from each of the two named defendants, plus interest and costs. On State Farm's motion, Judge Coletta transferred the case from the small-claims division to the municipal court's regular docket under R.C. 1925.10.

{¶ 3} In May 2019, Burke filed a motion to transfer the case to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In her motion, Burke contended that her claim exceeded $15,000 and therefore was beyond the court's jurisdictional limit. See R.C. 1901.17. State Farm opposed Burke's motion and asked the municipal court to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than transfer it.

{¶ 4} Judge Coletta granted Burke's motion and ordered the case transferred to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where it was assigned to Judge O'Donnell. Burke v. Mayfield Brainard Auto Servs., L.L.C. , Cuyahoga C.P. case No. CV-19-923671. State Farm filed a motion asking the common pleas court to refuse the transfer and return the case to the municipal court. Judge O'Donnell denied State Farm's motion.

{¶ 5} State Farm commenced this action on August 7, 2020, seeking a writ of prohibition ordering Judge O'Donnell to discontinue proceedings in the Burke lawsuit and a writ of mandamus ordering him to return the case to the municipal court. State Farm also asked for a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Coletta to dismiss the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction upon its return from the common pleas court.

{¶ 6} Judge Coletta did not respond to State Farm's complaint, but Judge O'Donnell filed a motion to dismiss it under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A). State Farm has filed a motion for default judgment as against Judge Coletta.

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 7} We must determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a peremptory writ is appropriate. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C). Dismissal is required if it appears beyond doubt, after presuming the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint and making all reasonable inferences in State Farm's favor, that State Farm is not entitled to extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus. State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals , 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 13. But if the pertinent facts are uncontroverted and it appears beyond doubt that State Farm is entitled to its requested relief, we will grant peremptory writs. Id. at ¶ 14.

A. Claims Against Judge O'Donnell

{¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, State Farm must establish that (1) Judge O'Donnell is about to or has exercised judicial power, (2) his exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Shumaker v. Nichols , 137 Ohio St.3d 391, 2013-Ohio-4732, 999 N.E.2d 630, ¶ 9. If the first two requirements are present, State Farm need not satisfy the third requirement if Judge O'Donnell "patently and unambiguously" lacks jurisdiction. Sapp at ¶ 15. In addition, when jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, " ‘prohibition and mandamus will issue to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of prior jurisdictionally unauthorized actions.’ " (Emphasis added.) Id. , quoting State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson , 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 2002-Ohio-6323, 779 N.E.2d 223, ¶ 12.

{¶ 9} There is no dispute that Judge O'Donnell has exercised judicial power and will continue to do so as the judge presiding over the Burke case. In most cases, we will not grant a writ of prohibition when a respondent judge has general subject-matter jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sponaugle v. Hein , 153 Ohio St.3d 560, 2018-Ohio-3155, 108 N.E.3d 1089, ¶ 24. And because a court of common pleas has general subject-matter jurisdiction over all civil cases, R.C. 2305.01, Judge O'Donnell contends that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be patently and unambiguously lacking in this case. While Judge O'Donnell's contention is generally true, the issue whether he has jurisdiction over the Burke case must be evaluated through the lens of our decision in Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 49 Ohio St.3d 49, 550 N.E.2d 941 (1990).

{¶ 10} In Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs. , the plaintiff's original complaint in a municipal-court action sought $10,000 in damages, then the jurisdictional limit of the municipal court under R.C. 1901.17. Id. at 49, 550 N.E.2d 941. The plaintiff later filed a supplemental complaint alleging total damages exceeding the municipal court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Rather than dismiss the case, the municipal court transferred it to the court of common pleas, purportedly under Civ.R. 13(J).¹ Id. The defendant sought writs of prohibition, mandamus, and procedendo in the court of appeals to prevent the common pleas court from proceeding, to compel the case's return to the municipal court, and to compel the municipal court to dismiss the case. Id.

{¶ 11} In a unanimous decision, we reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the defendant's writ action and granted the writs. Id. at 50-51, 550 N.E.2d 941. Civ.R. 13(J) requires the transfer of a case to the court of common pleas when a party's counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim causes the case to exceed a court's jurisdictional limit. Id. Because the case did not exceed the jurisdictional limit as a result of a counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, we found that the municipal court lacked authority under Civ.R. 13(J) to transfer the case. And because the municipal court lacked authority to transfer the case, "the common pleas court had no basis upon which to assume jurisdiction." Id. at 50, 550 N.E.2d 941.

{¶ 12} Our decision in Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs. informs our determination of this case. Because Judge Coletta has not responded to State Farm's complaint, the averred facts relating to the proceedings before him in the municipal court are accepted as true. See State ex rel. Spirko v. Judges of the Court of Appeals, Third Appellate Dist. , 27 Ohio St.3d 13, 15, 501 N.E.2d 625 (1986). In particular, it is established that (1) Burke filed a motion to transfer the case to the common pleas court on the basis that her claim exceeded the municipal court's $15,000 jurisdictional limit and (2) Judge Coletta granted Burke's motion. These uncontroverted facts establish that the municipal court lacked a valid basis for transferring the Burke matter and that the common pleas court had no basis on which to assume jurisdiction. Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs. , 49 Ohio St.3d at 50, 550 N.E.2d 941. We therefore grant peremptory writs of prohibition and mandamus prohibiting Judge O'Donnell from exercising jurisdiction over the Burke case and ordering him to return the case to the municipal court.

B. Mandamus Claim Against Judge Coletta

{¶ 13} State Farm also seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Coletta to dismiss the Burke case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the case's return from the common pleas court. While the uncontroverted allegations of State Farm's complaint support peremptory relief against Judge O'Donnell, they do not support the relief sought against Judge Coletta.

{¶ 14} In Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs. , in addition to the relief granted against the common pleas court, we ordered that the municipal court dismiss the case under Civ.R. 12(H)(3) for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 51, 550 N.E.2d 941. But in that case, the plaintiff in the municipal-court matter had filed a supplemental complaint to increase the damages sought to an amount beyond the municipal court's jurisdictional limit. Id. at 49, 550 N.E.2d 941. In contrast, State Farm has not alleged here that Burke filed an amended or supplemental complaint in the municipal court prior to Judge Coletta's order transferring the case. State Farm's complaint states only that Judge Coletta granted Burke's motion to transfer the case to the common pleas court based on her argument that her damages would exceed $15,000. But absent an amended or supplemental complaint in which Burke increased her demand to an amount exceeding $15,000, we cannot say that jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking in the municipal court. Accordingly, we deny the writ of mandamus as to Judge Coletta under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C).

{¶ 15} The fact that State Farm has filed a motion for default judgment against Judge Coletta does not alter our analysis. "When appropriate, a default judgment may be entered in a mandamus...