Ohio R. Superi. Ct. 36.011

As amended through July 25, 2024

Rule 36.011 - Individual Assignment System

(A) Adoption of system Except as provided in Sup.R. 36.012 through 36.015, each multi-judge general, domestic relations, probate, and juvenile division of a court o f common pleas; multi-judge municipal court; and multi-judge county court shall adopt the individual assignment system for the assignment of all cases to judges of the court or division, as applicable.

(B)Time of assignment Cases shall be assigned pursuant to the individual assignment system as follows:

(1) In a civil case in a municipal or county court, when an answer is filed or when a motion, other than a motion for default judgment, is filed;

(2) In a traffic or criminal case in a municipal or county court, when a plea of not guilty is entered;

(3) In a civil case in a court of common pleas, when a complaint or petition is filed with the clerk of court;

(4) In a criminal case in a court of common pleas, no later than upon arraignment;

(5) In a delinquency, unruly, adult, or traffic case in the juvenile division of a court of common pleas, no later than upon arraignment or initial appearance. In all other cases in the juvenile division, when a compliant or petition is filed.

(C) Modifications to system

(1) Except as provided in Sup.R. 36.012, each multi-judge general, domestic relations, probate, and juvenile division of a court of common pleas and multi-judge municipal and county court may adopt modifications to the individual assignment system to provide for the following:

(a) The redistribution of cases involving the same criminal defendant, parties, family members, or subject-matter;

(b) The direct assignment of a new criminal or delinquency case involving a person who is currently on probation with the court or division to the judge to whom the probation case is assigned.

(2) Any modifications shall be adopted by local rule of court and ensure each of the following:

(a) Judicial accountability for the processing of individual cases;

(b) Timely processing of cases through prompt judicial control over cases and the pace of litigation;

(c) Random assignment of cases to judges of the division through an objective and impartial system that ensures the equitable distribution of cases between or among the judges of the division.

Ohio. R. Superi. Ct. 36.011

Amended September 26, 2017; effective 1/1/2018.

The individual assignment system is defined by the rule as a system whereby, upon the filing or transfer of a civil case, or upon arraignment in a criminal case, the case is immediately assigned to a judge of the court. The rule sets forth three purposes of the individual assignment system. All multi-judge divisions of the court of common pleas and all multi-judge municipal and county courts, except as provided in Sup.R. 36.012 through 36.015, are required to adopt the individual assignment system. Courts or divisions are permitted to deviate from the individual assignment system only if the modifications satisfy the three stated purposes of the system and are adopted by local rule of court pursuant to Sup.R. 5. Permissible modifications include the assignment and consideration of cases involving the same criminal defendant, parties, family members, or subject-matter.

The distinguishing feature of the individual assignment system is that it places responsibility upon one judge for the disposition of cases. Once a case is assigned to a judge under this system, all matters pertaining to the case are to be submitted to that judge for determination. An exception is made where that judge is unavailable. In that instance, the administrative judge may act in the assigned judge's absence.

Under Sup.R. 36.011, the administrative judge is responsible for the assignment of cases to the individual judges of the court. Assignment may be made by the administrative judge personally or by court personnel at the administrative judge's direction. All assignments of cases to individual judges must be made by lot.

The purpose of the random assignment, by lot, of cases is to avoid judge-shopping on the part of counsel and to distribute the cases equitably among the judges.

See Sup.R. 43(E) and its commentary concerning how the numbering system is geared to the record keeping requirements of the individual assignment system