Case Title: State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council

Citation: 2007-Ohio-5699

Docket Number: 20071801

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131, 2007-Ohio-
5699.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ESARCO v. YOUNGSTOWN CITY COUNCIL ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131, 
2007-Ohio-5699.] 
Elections – Mandamus – Court lacks jurisdiction over petition whose real object 
is declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction – Cause dismissed. 
(No. 2007-1801 ─ Submitted October 23, 2007 ─ Decided October 26, 2007.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to 
declare unlawful an ordinance submitting a proposed charter amendment to the 
electorate, to prohibit the election on the proposed amendment, and to compel a 
city council and a mayor to create a charter commission to review and 
recommend charter amendments.  Because the real objects sought are a 
declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction and relator failed to comply with 
the personal-knowledge requirement of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B), we dismiss the 
cause. 
{¶ 2} On September 5, 2007, respondent Youngstown City Council 
enacted Ordinance No. 07-218, which submits a proposed charter amendment to 
the electorate at the November 6, 2007 general election.  The proposal would 
amend various sections of the charter relating to the city of Youngstown’s park 
and recreation commission. 
{¶ 3} On September 6, the city certified the proposed charter amendment 
to the ballot for the November 6 election.  On that same date, Maggy Lorenzi, a 
qualified elector, filed a written protest against the certification of the proposed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
charter amendment to the ballot.  On the next day, Michael James, another 
qualified elector, filed a protest against the certification of the proposed charter 
amendment.  Both protests claimed that the placement of the proposed 
amendment on the ballot violated the city charter and Sections 8 and 9, Article 
XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.  On September 18, respondent Mahoning County 
Board of Elections held a hearing on the protests.  The board denied the protests. 
{¶ 4} On October 1, 2007, relator, Terrance P. Esarco, a taxpayer, 
resident, and registered elector of the city of Youngstown, filed this expedited 
election action for a writ of mandamus.  In addition to declaring the proposed 
charter-amendment ordinance unlawful and invalid and ordering the Mahoning 
County Board of Elections to remove the ordinance from the November 6 election 
ballot, the action sought to compel the city council and mayor to create a charter 
commission to review and recommend charter amendments.  Esarco did not file a 
protest against the ordinance placing the proposed charter amendment on the 
ballot and did not participate in the hearing on the protests by Lorenzi and James. 
{¶ 5} In his complaint, Esarco named the city council and its members, 
the mayor, and the board of elections as respondents.  Respondents filed answers, 
and the parties submitted evidence and briefs pursuant to the court’s S.Ct.Prac.R. 
X(9) accelerated schedule for expedited election cases.  Esarco’s reply brief was 
due on October 22, but he failed to file one. 
{¶ 6} This cause is now before us upon the merits of Esarco’s purported 
mandamus claim. 
Mandamus in the Nature of 
Declaratory Judgment and Prohibitory Injunction 
{¶ 7} Esarco primarily requests a writ of mandamus to declare 
Ordinance No. 07-218 unlawful and invalid and to prevent the November 6, 2007 
election on the ordinance’s proposed charter amendment.  Esarco claims that the 
ordinance is invalid because it was not enacted in an open meeting of council, it 
January Term, 2007 
3 
was improperly characterized as an emergency measure, and it should have been 
presented to the city council by a charter commission. 
{¶ 8} “It is axiomatic that ‘if the allegations of a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus indicate that the real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and a 
prohibitory injunction, the complaint does not state a cause of action in 
mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.’ ”  State ex rel. Obojski 
v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 2007-Ohio-2453, 866 N.E.2d 1070, ¶ 13, quoting 
State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 
704. 
{¶ 9} “We have applied this jurisdictional rule to expedited election 
cases by examining the complaint to determine whether it actually seeks to 
prevent, rather than compel, official action.”  State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 
Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 20; State ex rel. Reese v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 126, 2007-Ohio-4588, 873 
N.E.2d 1251, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 10} Despite the fact that Esarco couched some of his allegations and 
requests in his complaint in terms of compelling affirmative duties, it is apparent 
that on his primary claim, Esarco actually seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that 
the ordinance submitting the charter amendment issue to the electorate is invalid 
and (2) a prohibitory injunction preventing the November 6, 2007 election on the 
proposed charter amendment.  The complaint itself is titled “Verified Complaint 
for * * * Declaratory Judgment,” and Esarco specifically requests that the 
ordinance be declared unlawful and invalid.  He also requests that the proposed 
charter amendment “not be submitted to the voters of the City of Youngstown on 
November 6, 2007.” 
{¶ 11} The relief that Esarco requests is comparable to that sought by 
relators in other election cases in which we held that we lacked jurisdiction over 
mandamus claims to prevent issues from being placed on an election ballot.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Evans, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 21-22; State ex 
rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-
4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 25-26; State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 
481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 20-22.  Although we have at times 
recognized the propriety of using a writ of mandamus to enjoin election officials 
from performing the ministerial act of placing an issue on an election ballot, these 
cases are either inapposite or ignore well-established precedent that this court 
lacks original jurisdiction in prohibitory injunction.  See, generally, Evans, 111 
Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 24-27 (discussing inapposite 
cases); State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 
247, 248, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (“Neither this court nor a court of appeals has original 
jurisdiction in prohibitory injunction”). 
{¶ 12} Therefore, because Esarco seeks relief in the nature of declaratory 
judgment and prohibitory injunction, we lack jurisdiction to consider his 
purported mandamus claim and must dismiss the cause.  Evans at ¶ 19; Reese, 
115 Ohio St.3d 126, 2007-Ohio-4588, 873 N.E.2d 1251, ¶ 15. 
Mandamus to Compel City Council and Mayor to 
Create Charter Commission to Review and Recommend 
Charter Amendments 
{¶ 13} Esarco also requests a writ of mandamus to compel the city council 
and mayor to follow constitutional and charter provisions concerning the creation 
of a charter commission. 
{¶ 14} Nevertheless, dismissal of this additional claim is required because 
Esarco’s purported verification of the complaint did not satisfy the S.Ct.Prac.R. 
X(4)(B) personal-knowledge requirement.  All complaints filed in original actions 
in this court, other than habeas corpus, must be supported by an affidavit 
specifying the details of the claim, and the affidavit “shall be made on personal 
knowledge.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B).  “ ‘We have routinely dismissed original 
January Term, 2007 
5 
actions, other than habeas corpus, that were not supported by an affidavit 
expressly stating that the facts in the complaint were based on the affiant’s 
personal knowledge.’ ”  State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 
2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 31, quoting State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 
97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334, 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 24. 
{¶ 15} Although Esarco’s verification initially states that he has “personal 
knowledge of the matters set forth herein,” he does not expressly state that the 
facts set forth in his complaint are based on his personal knowledge.  Instead, 
Esarco specifies in his verification that the facts in his complaint are based simply 
on the “best” of his knowledge, information, and belief: “I have reviewed the 
foregoing Verified Complaint for Writ of Mandamus, Alternative Writ of 
Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment and, to the best of my knowledge, 
information and belief, all of the facts alleged therein are true.”  (Emphasis 
added.)     
{¶ 16} This affidavit is insufficient.  Evans, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-
Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 31-32 (affidavit statement that facts in the complaint 
are true and correct to the best of affiant’s knowledge is insufficient to comply 
with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B)); Hackworth, 97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334, 776 
N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 24 (affidavit statement that facts in the complaint are “true and 
accurate to the best of [affiant’s] knowledge and belief” is insufficient to comply 
with the rule).  Although respondents notified Esarco of this defect in both their 
answers and their merit briefs, Esarco failed to timely seek leave to amend his 
complaint to correct his verification.  See State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter 
Amendment for an Elected Law Dir. v. Bay Village, 115 Ohio St.3d 400, 2007-
Ohio-5380, 875 N.E.2d 574, ¶ 14.  Therefore, dismissal is warranted.  Id.; see, 
also, Evans at ¶ 34. 
{¶ 17} Finally, Esarco’s claims are also barred because he failed to file a 
protest against the ordinance he now challenges in this expedited election case.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
State ex rel. Lynch v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 341, 
343, 686 N.E.2d 498.  “[A] relator must file a protest on relevant issues before 
bringing an action for an extraordinary writ based on those issues.  By filing a 
protest, a relator avoids the charge that he or she has bypassed an adequate legal 
remedy.”  State ex rel. Shumate v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 64 Ohio 
St.3d 12, 14, 591 N.E.2d 1194. 
{¶ 18} For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the cause. 
Cause dismissed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
The Kish Law Firm, L.L.C., and Brian P. Kish, for relator. 
Iris Torres Guglucello, Youngstown Law Director, and Anthony J. Farris, 
Deputy Law Director, for respondents Youngstown City Council and mayor. 
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Linette M. 
Stratford, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Civil Division, for respondent Mahoning 
County Board of Elections. 
____________________