Case Title: State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley

Citation: 1997-Ohio-120

Docket Number: 19971420

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. KEENER ET AL. V. VILLAGE OF AMBERLEY ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel village of Amberley, its mayor, and village solicitor to 
perform acts concerning executive sessions of the village council — Cause 
dismissed when respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the 
requested acts. 
 
(No. 97-1420 — Submitted September 23, 1997 — Decided November 19, 
1997.) 
 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
According to relators, certain citizens and residents of respondent village of 
Amberley, the Amberley Village Council and its committees conducted numerous 
executive sessions in 1995 and 1996 in which the press, public, and relators were 
barred, allegedly in violation of Section IV, Article III of the Amberley Village 
Charter and R.C. 121.22, Ohio’s Sunshine Law.  In July 1997, relators filed a 
complaint that named the village, the mayor, and the village solicitor as 
respondents.  Relators did not name either the village council or the village 
council members as respondents.  Relators set forth several claims for relief and 
requested (1) a writ of mandamus to prevent respondents from conducting future 
executive sessions of the village council and its committees, (2) a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents to prepare and publish minutes of certain 
executive sessions conducted by village council and its committees, (3) a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondent village to prepare and publish minutes of certain 
village council executive sessions, and (4) a writ of mandamus to compel village 
council to prepare and publish minutes of an executive session and to cease and 
desist such sessions. 
 
2
 
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this mandamus action because, 
among other reasons, they are not the proper parties to the action. 
 
The cause is now before this court on a S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) determination. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas A. Luken and David J. Boyd, for relators. 
 
Stephen Cohen, Amberley Village Solicitor, for respondents. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We grant respondents’ motion and dismiss the cause.  
Relators failed to name the proper respondents in this action, and the named 
respondents do not have a duty to perform any of the requested acts.  See Section 
IV, Article III of the Amberley Charter; R.C. 121.22(B); see, also, Krash v. 
Alliance (July 2, 1990), Stark App. Nos. CA-8046 and CA-8058, unreported, 1990 
WL 93914.  In addition, respondents’ motion to dismiss alerted relators to this 
problem, i.e., failure to name the village council or its members as parties, even 
though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members.  Relators, 
however, did not specifically oppose this part of respondents’ dismissal motion in 
their motion to strike or seek leave to amend their complaint.  See, generally, 1 
Klein & Darling, Baldwin’s Ohio Practice, Civil Practice (1997) 872, Section AT 
19-2, citing Moore v. Benjamin (Mar. 27, 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 50316, 
unreported, 1986 WL 3718.1 
Motion granted 
and cause dismissed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
 
3
1. 
Based on the foregoing, relators’ motion to strike, which is not directed to 
this part of respondents’ motion to dismiss, is moot.