Case Title: In re Disqualification of Mitrovich

Citation: 2000-Ohio-200

Docket Number: 2000AP090

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 91 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2000-Ohio-200.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MITROVICH. 
LAKETRAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES  v. CITY OF MENTOR. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mitrovich (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1206.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Untimely allegation that judge has 
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts because he presided at 
case before its appeal to and remand from the court of appeals — Canon 
3(E)(1)(a) does not mandate disqualification — No showing that judge 
will not obey remand order. 
(No. 00-AP-090 — Decided October 8, 2000.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lake County Common Pleas Court case 
No. 00CV000050. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Daniel 
Richards, counsel for defendant city of Mentor, seeking the disqualification of 
Judge Paul Mitrovich from further proceedings in the underlying case, which is 
before Judge Mitrovich on remand from the court of appeals. 
 
Affiant claims that Judge Mitrovich’s disqualification from the underlying 
case is warranted pursuant to Canon 3(E)(1)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct 
because he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts arising from his 
prior participation in this matter.  However, this provision does not mandate a 
judge’s recusal or disqualification from proceedings that are remanded from a 
reviewing court [In re Disqualification of Kimmel (1987), 36 Ohio St.3d 602, 522 
N.E.2d 456], or refiled in the trial court, Rule 36(D) of the Rules of 
Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio.  Affiant offers no evidence to support his 
assertion that Judge Mitrovich is biased against his client or his inference that the 
judge will not obey the remand order from the court of appeals. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
I also note that affiant filed a motion in the trial court on February 9, 2000, 
seeking Judge Mitrovich’s recusal from participation in this case, and that Judge 
Mitrovich overruled this motion on March 8, 2000.  Rather than promptly seeking 
Judge Mitrovich’s disqualification, affiant waited until ten days before the 
scheduled trial date of September 25, 2000, to file an affidavit of disqualification 
in the Supreme Court.  In the interim, affiant filed a motion for summary 
judgment on May 16, 2000, and a request for a jury trial on August 3, 2000, and 
did not object to Judge Mitrovich’s consideration of those motions.  As I stated in 
In re Disqualification of Pepple (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 606, 607, 546 N.E.2d 
1298: 
 
“In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, an affidavit of 
disqualification should not be used to disqualify a judge after lengthy 
proceedings have taken place in a case.  In re Disqualification of Light 
(1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 604, 522 N.E.2d 458.  A party may be said to have 
waived the right to obtain a judge’s disqualification when the alleged basis 
therefor has been known to the party for some time, but the objection is 
raised in an untimely fashion, well after the judge has participated in the 
proceedings.”  (Citation omitted.) 
 
Considering the time that elapsed between the ruling on the motion to 
recuse and the filing of the affidavit, the events that transpired during that period 
of time, and the fact that affiant cites no extraordinary circumstances that justify 
the delay in raising the issue of disqualification, I cannot conclude that Judge 
Mitrovich’s disqualification is warranted at this late date. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Mitrovich. 
__________________