State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio

164 Ohio St.3d 579

174 N.E.3d 744

The STATE EX REL. BECHTEL et al.,

v.CORNACHIO, Judge.

No. 2019-1463

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 2, 2021

Decided April 6, 2021.

Michela Huth, Bolivar, for relators.

Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., Lisa M. Zaring, and Kimberly Vanover Riley, Cincinnati, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this original action, relators, Nadine Bechtel and Jo Brantweiner, seek a writ of procedendo to compel respondent, Willoughby Municipal Court Judge Marisa Cornachio, to enter a final judgment regarding a magistrate's probable-cause finding in an animal-seizure case. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the writ as moot.

Background

{¶ 2} On May 2, 2019, an officer from the city of Eastlake/Lake Humane Society seized 97 animals from the Animal Rescue Center located at 36370 Vine Street, Eastlake, Ohio ("the Center"). The next day, Willoughby Municipal Court Magistrate Almis Stempuzis held a hearing in In re 36370 Vine Street , Willoughby Municipal Court case No. 19MIS00001 ("the seizure case"), to determine whether the officer had probable cause to believe that the animals had been subjected to cruelty.

{¶ 3} Magistrate Stempuzis issued a journal entry finding probable cause for the seizure and requiring the Center to deposit $29,100 to provide for the care of the animals for one month. Magistrate Stempuzis ordered the Center to renew the deposit every 30 days and warned that if the Center failed to make a required deposit, "the Lake Humane Society shall have authority to dispose of the animals as it deems appropriate."

{¶ 4} On May 9, 2019, Bechtel filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate's probable-cause determination with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, but the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. In re 36370 Vine St. , 11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-041, 2019-Ohio-3448, 2019 WL 4016679, ¶ 9. On the same day that the court of appeals dismissed the appeal, Bechtel filed a motion in the trial court asking for a final judgment in the seizure case. Judge Cornachio denied the motion.

{¶ 5} On October 28, 2019, Bechtel and Brantweiner commenced this original action for a writ of procedendo to compel

Judge Cornachio to issue a final judgment in the seizure case. We denied Judge Cornachio's motion to dismiss and ordered her to file an answer to the complaint. 158 Ohio St.3d 1493, 2020-Ohio-2739, 144 N.E.3d 428. Judge Cornachio filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On September 23, 2020, we denied that motion and granted an alternative writ. 160 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2020-Ohio-4458, 153 N.E.3d 101.

{¶ 6} On October 12, 2020, Judge Cornachio issued a judgment entry in the seizure case. That entry states:

This matter is before the Court on the Journal Entry ("Magistrate's Decision") entered May 3, 2019. Upon review, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate's Decision and enters Judgment.

* * *

The parties may appeal this decision to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals by filing a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of this order.

Analysis

{¶ 7} "A writ of procedendo is an extraordinary remedy in the form of an order from a higher tribunal directing a lower tribunal to proceed to judgment." State ex rel. Mignella v. Indus. Comm. , 156 Ohio St.3d 251, 2019-Ohio-463, 125 N.E.3d 844, ¶ 7. "A writ of procedendo may be used to compel an inferior, dilatory court to proceed to a final judgment." State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo , 156 Ohio St.3d 548, 2019-Ohio-1698, 130 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 32. The writ does not instruct the lower court as to what the judgment should be; rather, it merely instructs the lower court to issue a judgment. State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d 899 (1995). "A writ of procedendo is appropriate upon a showing of ‘a clear legal right to require the trial court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the trial court to proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.’ " State ex rel. White v. Woods , 156 Ohio St.3d 562, 2019-Ohio-1893, 130 N.E.3d 271, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Ward v. Reed , 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, 21 N.E.3d 303, ¶ 9.

{¶ 8} The issue presented in this case is whether Judge Cornachio has a clear legal duty to issue a judgment entry regarding the magistrate's probable-cause determination that was issued pursuant to R.C. 959.132(E)(1). Irrespective of whether Judge Cornachio was legally required to issue a judgment entry regarding the magistrate's decision, she did so. She provided the relief that Bechtel and Brantweiner seek in procedendo by issuing the October 12, 2020 judgment entry adopting the magistrate's probable-cause determination. The complaint is therefore moot.

{¶ 9} Procedendo will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh , 159 Ohio St.3d 457, 2020-Ohio-1540, 151 N.E.3d 625, ¶ 6. When a relator seeks to compel the issuance of a judgment entry through a writ of procedendo and the judge issues the entry, the procedendo claim is moot. See, e.g. , State ex rel. Hibbler v. O'Neill , 159 Ohio St.3d 566, 2020-Ohio-1070, 152 N.E.3d 265, ¶ 8.

{¶ 10} Bechtel and Brantweiner assert that this case is not moot, because, in their view, the judgment entry that Judge Cornachio signed does not contain the necessary elements to be a final, appealable order. However, Bechtel and Brantweiner have offered no viable authority for the proposition that procedendo is the proper

vehicle by which to test the finality...