Case Title: Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept.

Citation: 1996-Ohio-205

Docket Number: 19952002

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department. 
[Cite as Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept. (1996),  
Ohio St.3d    .] 
Mandamus to compel Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police 
Department to provide requested police report and to enjoin the 
custodian from requiring persons requesting public records to 
provide personal information prior to being afforded access to the 
records -- Cause dismissed, when. 
 
(No. 95-2002 -- Submitted April 15, 1996 -- Decided May 29, 1996.) 
 
In Mandamus. 
 
Relator, Litigaide, Inc. (“Litigaide”), provides litigation support services to 
attorneys and other clients.  In August 1995, Litigaide’s sole employee, Randall G. 
Buckosh, requested a copy of a police report from respondent, Custodian of 
Records for Lakewood Police Department.  After respondent refused Litigaide’s 
request, Litigaide instituted this action for a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondent to provide the requested police report and to enjoin respondent from 
requiring persons requesting public records to provide personal information prior 
to being afforded access to records.   
____________________ 
 
2
 
Debra J. Dixon, for relator. 
 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Albert J. Lucas and Stanley J. Dobrowski; and 
Michael E. Murman, Lakewood Director of Law, for respondent. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following 
reasons.  Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was 
not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide.  Respondent raised 
this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek 
leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04.  Therefore, Litigaide’s 
mandamus action must be dismissed.  See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, 
Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; 
Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 19 O.O.2d 51, 52, 
181 N.E.2d 268, 269. 
 
In addition, to the extent that Litigaide requests injunctive relief, its claim 
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 
71 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 640 N.E.2d 1136, 1137-1138. 
 
Accordingly, the cause is dismissed, and Litigaide’s request for attorney 
fees is denied. 
 
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cause dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.