Opinion
No. 109922
09-02-2020
A.S., Relator, v. HONORABLE ROSEMARY GRDINA GOLD, ET AL., Respondent.
Appearances: Joseph G. Stafford, for relator. Scott S. Rosenthal and James L. Lane, Rosenthal/Thurman/Lane, LLC, for J.S.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED Writ of Prohibition
Motion No. 540870
Order No. 540880
Appearances:
Joseph G. Stafford, for relator. Scott S. Rosenthal and James L. Lane, Rosenthal/Thurman/Lane, LLC, for J.S. MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.:
{¶ 1} A.S. (husband/father) has filed a complaint through which he seeks a writ of prohibition. A.S. argues that Judge Rosemary Grdina Gold does not possess the jurisdiction to preside over a hearing with regard to a motion to modify shared parenting time that is scheduled for September 2, 2020, in J.S. v. A.S, Cuyahoga Dom. Rel. No. DR-19- 375930. In addition, A.S. has named J.S. (wife/mother) as a respondent in the complaint for a writ of prohibition. For the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss the complaint for a writ of prohibition pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
I. FACTS
{¶ 2} The following facts are gleaned from the complaint for a writ of prohibition: 1) A.S. and J.S. are parties to a divorce action that has been pending since March 18, 2019; 2) On April 2, 2019, A.S. and J.S. executed an interim parenting time agreement with regard to their three minor children; 3) On October 18, 2019, J.S. filed a "motion to modify interim parenting time orders under Civ.R. 75(N)"; 4) On April 29, 2020, J.S. filed a "renewed motion to modify interim parenting time order pursuant to Civ. R. 75(N)"; 5) On July 11, 2020, Judge Grdina Gold issued a notice scheduling the motions to modify for a hearing on September 2, 2020; 6) On August 19, 2020, A.S. filed his witness and exhibit list. In addition, A.S. issued a subpoena to Candice Risen and Bruce Tallisman to appear and testify at the hearing scheduled for September 2, 2020. 7) On August 28, 2020, counsel for A.S. received an email from the Staff Attorney for Judge Grdina Gold that the court "will allow testimony only from Plaintiff, Defendant and the Guardian ad Litem. Neither Dr. Neuhaus or Ms. Rosen will be permitted to testify. Likewise, any record of these medical providers will not be accepted"; 8) On August 31, 2020, A.S. filed his complaint for a writ of prohibition. 9) On September 1, 2020, counsel for J.S. filed a reply brief captioned "respondent's J.S.'s memorandum in opposition to relator's writ of prohibition and motion to stay." The brief does not provide any analysis as to why a writ of prohibition should not be granted. The brief simply argues facts that will be presented and/or should not be presented at the hearing scheduled for September 2, 2020.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 3} A.S. argues that Judge Grdina Gold does not possess the necessary jurisdiction to proceed to an adjudication with regard to the pending motions to modify the interim parenting time order. Specifically, A.S. argues that Judge Grdina Gold's restrictions and limitations placed upon the presentation of witnesses and evidence are contrary to the Cuyahoga Domestic Relations Court Local Rules, contrary to R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), and also contrary to the recent holding issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3345.
{¶ 4} In order for this court to issue a writ of prohibition, A.S. must establish that: 1) Judge Grdina Gold is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; 2) the exercise of judicial power by Judge Grdina Gold is unauthorized by law; and 3) there exists no remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 686 N.E.2d 267 (1997); State ex rel. Estate of Nichols v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107508, 2018-Ohio-3416. A writ of prohibition is designed to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter in which it is not authorized to hear and determine, or in which it seeks to usurp or exercise jurisdiction with which it has not been invested by law. State ex rel. Doe v. Tracy, 51 Ohio App.3d 198, 555 N.E.2d 674 (12th Dist.1988).
{¶ 5} It is also well established that the purpose of a writ of prohibition is to prevent inferior courts and tribunals from usurping jurisdiction beyond that with which they have been granted by law. State ex rel. White v. Junkin, supra. Where a court possesses general subject matter jurisdiction over a pending action, a writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent an error of law. State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181; State ex rel. Winnefeld v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler Cty., 159 Ohio St. 225, 112 N.E.2d 27 (1953). The writ will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, or to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64, 65, 90 N.E.2d 598 (1950). Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273, 28 N.E.2d 641 (1940). In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court exercising general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction and any party contesting the jurisdiction of a court possesses an adequate remedy through an appeal. State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421, 2012-Ohio-5697, 983 N.E.2d 302.
{¶ 6} Herein, Judge Grdina Gold and the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court possess the basic statutory jurisdiction to preside over and adjudicate the divorce action and further determine parenting rights. R.C. 3105.011 sets forth the jurisdiction of domestic relations courts. It states that the court of common pleas, including divisions of courts of domestic relations, has full equitable powers and jurisdiction appropriate to the determination of all domestic relations matters. State ex rel. N.A. v. Cross, 125 Ohio St.3d 6, 2010-Ohio-1471, 925 N.E.2d 614; Bolinger v. Bolinger, 49 Ohio St.3d 120, 551 N.E.2d 157 (1990); State ex rel. Resnick v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 77043, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 27 (Jan. 3, 2000).
{¶ 7} In addition, A.S. possesses an adequate remedy at law through a direct appeal once Judge Grdina has adjudicated the pending divorce proceedings and determined parental rights. State ex rel. Willacy v. Smith, 78 Ohio St.3d 47, 676 N.E.2d 109 (1997). The arguments offered by A.S., in support of the complaint for a writ of prohibition, that restrictions and limitations placed upon the presentation of witnesses and evidence are contrary to the Cuyahoga Domestic Relations Court Local Rules, the failure to abide by R.C. 3109.04(B)(1), and the failure to abide by the recent holding issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, supra, must be raised on appeal and do not support a claim for prohibition.
{¶ 8} Finally, A.S. is not entitled to a writ of prohibition against J.S., because J.S. does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority, which is one of the elements that must be established before a writ of prohibition will issue. State ex rel. Potts v. Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., 93 Ohio St.3d 452, 455, 2001-Ohio-1586, 755 N.E.2d 886, quoting State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 718 N.E.2d 908 (1999).
III. Conclusion
{¶ 9} A.S. has failed to establish that Judge Grdina Gold is about to exercise judicial authority that is not authorized by law. In addition, A.S. has failed to demonstrate that J.S. is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the complaint for a writ of prohibition pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Costs to A.S. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶ 10} Complaint dismissed. /s/_________
MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR