Opinion
No. 79-1405
Decided January 16, 1980.
Prohibition — To prohibit court from exercising jurisdiction — Complaint dismissed, when — Action not unauthorized by law.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
La Boiteaux Company, Inc. (appellant), is a defendant in a pending suit, styled Achberger v. La Boiteaux, Inc., case No. 77-05219, in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County (appellee). That action deals with the liability of appellant for employment bonuses allegedly due Achberger, plaintiff in said action. Appellant brought an original action in prohibition in the Court of Appeals alleging that the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 applied and, therefore, established exclusive original jurisdiction in federal district court. Thus, appellant seeks a writ to prohibit appellee court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter.
Section 211 of the Act (Section 1904 note, Title 12, U.S. Code) provides, in relevant part:
"(a) The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all cases or controversies arising under this title, or under regulations or orders issued thereunder, notwithstanding the amount in controversy; except that nothing in this subsection or in subsection (h) of this section affects the power of any court of competent jurisdiction to consider, hear, and determine any issue by way of defense (other than a defense based on the constitutionality of this title or the validity of action taken by any agency under this title) raised in any proceedings before such court.***" (Emphasis added.)
Appellee's motion to dismiss the prohibition action was granted by the Court of Appeals. The cause is now before this court on appeal as of right.
Mr. Gates T. Richards and Mr. Stuart Schloss, for appellant.
Mr. Simon L. Leis, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Roger E. Friedmann, for appellee.
Three conditions must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition: (1) the court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power must be clearly unauthorized by law, and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State, ex rel. Bell, v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 95. Any action to be taken by appellee court has not been demonstrated to be unauthorized by law. Thus, an action in prohibition is improper here.
For the above reason we affirm the dismissal of the action by the Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.