From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski

STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LORAIN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Sep 30, 2019
2019 Ohio 3982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

Opinion

C.A. No. 19CA011530 C.A. No. 19CA011537

09-30-2019

STATE EX REL. RYAN SALIM Relator v. HON. JUDGE MARK A. BETLESKI Respondent

APPEARANCES: ROBERT E. JORDAN, JR., Pro se, Relator. DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and CHRIS A. PYANOWSKI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.


ORIGINAL ACTION IN PROCEDENDO

{¶1} Relator, Ryan Salim, has petitioned this Court for a writ of procedendo to compel Respondent, Judge Mark Betleski, to rule on a motion for summary judgment pending in Mr. Salim's underlying civil case. Judge Betleski has moved to dismiss the complaint as moot because he has ruled on the motion. Because the motion has been ruled on, Mr. Salim's claim is moot, and this Court dismisses his petition.

{¶2} To obtain a writ of procedendo, Mr. Salim must establish that he has a clear legal right to require the judge to proceed, that the judge has a clear legal duty to proceed, and that there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, ¶ 9, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). Procedendo is the appropriate remedy when a court has refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled that procedendo will not "compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed." State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 1998-Ohio-541.

{¶3} Mr. Salim sought a writ of procedendo to order the judge to rule on the pending motion for summary judgment. This Court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine that an action is moot. State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000). According to Judge Betleski's motion to dismiss, and a review of the trial court docket, Judge Betleski ruled on the motion for summary judgment that was the subject of this complaint. Accordingly, this matter is moot.

{¶4} Because Mr. Salim's claim is moot, his complaint is dismissed. Costs are taxed to Mr. Salim. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).

/s/_________

THOMAS A. TEODOSIO

FOR THE COURT HENSAL, J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

ROBERT E. JORDAN, JR., Pro se, Relator. DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and CHRIS A. PYANOWSKI, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.


Summaries of

State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski

STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LORAIN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Sep 30, 2019
2019 Ohio 3982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Case details for

State ex rel. Salim v. Betleski

Case Details

Full title:STATE EX REL. RYAN SALIM Relator v. HON. JUDGE MARK A. BETLESKI Respondent

Court:STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF LORAIN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Date published: Sep 30, 2019

Citations

2019 Ohio 3982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)