Case Title: State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor

Citation: 1995-Ohio-87

Docket Number: 19940896

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc., Appellant, v.                       
Connor, Judge, et al., Appellees.                                                
[Cite as State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor                       
(1995),     Ohio St.3d    .]                                                     
Mandamus to compel judge of common pleas court to issue a                        
     judgment upholding a protest filed with the Ohio Motor                      
     Vehicles Dealers Board -- Court of appeals' judgment                        
     granting motion to dismiss reversed and cause remanded,                     
     when.                                                                       
     (No. 94-896 -- Submitted March 7, 1995 -- Decided April                     
26, 1995.)                                                                       
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.                   
93APD11-1539.                                                                    
     On May 24, 1993, appellant, Williams Ford Sales, Inc., a                    
duly licensed automobile and truck dealer franchised by Ford                     
Motor Company, filed a timely notice of appeal from a decision                   
of intervenor appellee, Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Board                         
("board") in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.   The                    
administrative appeal was designated case No. 93CVF-05-3633 and                  
was assigned to appellee, Judge John A. Connor.                                  
     On July 2, 1993, after the board failed to prepare and                      
certify to the common pleas court a complete record of the                       
proceedings in the case as required by R.C. 119.12, appellant                    
filed a motion for judgment in its favor.  Appellant requested                   
that its initial protest, which it filed with the board against                  
a proposed competing dealer relocation, be upheld.  At no time                   
prior to September 24, 1993 had the board attempted to certify                   
its record in case No. 93CVF-05-3633.  On that date, Judge                       
Connor denied appellant's motion for judgment in its favor and                   
granted the board's motion to consolidate appellant's                            
administrative appeal with another appeal filed by a separate                    
protesting Ford dealer.                                                          
     On November 5, 1993, appellant filed a complaint in the                     
Court of Appeals for Franklin County seeking a writ of mandamus                  
to compel Judge Connor to issue a judgment upholding Williams                    
Ford's protest filed with the board.  The board was granted                      
leave to intervene, and both it and Judge Connor filed motions                   
to dismiss the complaint.  On February 24, 1994, the court of                    
appeals entered judgment granting respondent's motion and                        
dismissed the action.                                                            
     The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of                     
right.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Thomas P. Michael, for appellant.                                           
     Michael Miller, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and                   
Harland H. Hale, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.                   
     Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and David B.                         
Clouston, Assistant Attorney General, for intervenor appellee                    
Motor Vehicle  Dealers Board.                                                    
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  The board has filed a motion to dismiss the                    
appeal on the basis that appellant possesses a plain and                         
adequate remedy at law.  However, since this is a timely filed                   
appeal as of right, the board's dismissal motion is                              
inappropriate.  See State ex rel. Soley v. Dorrell (1994), 69                    
Ohio St.3d 514, 515, 634 N.E.2d 212, 216.  Therefore,                            
appellant's motion to strike the board's dismissal motion is                     
granted.  However, the board's memorandum in support of its                      
motion to dismiss will be treated as a brief on the merits.  Id.                 
     In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, appellant                    
had the burden to prove a clear legal right to the entry of                      
judgment in its favor in the administrative appeal, a                            
corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Judge Connor to                    
enter judgment in its favor, and the absence of a plain and                      
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel.                    
Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 489, 490, 633                        
N.E.2d 1128, 1129.                                                               
     In order to dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6),                      
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,                       
after presuming that all factual allegations are true and all                    
reasonable inferences are made in favor of the nonmoving party,                  
it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the                          
relator/plaintiff  can prove no set of facts warranting                          
relief.  State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School Dist.                   
Bd. of Edn. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 416, 639 N.E.2d 80.                            
     The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action                          
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because appellant had "not                           
demonstrated that an appeal from a subsequent judgment of the                    
trial court, although possibly judicially uneconomical, would                    
not be an adequate remedy."  However, Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions                    
merely ascertain whether the complaint alleges the mandamus                      
conditions with sufficient particularity so that reasonable                      
notice of the claim is given to the respondent, i.e., Ohio                       
generally follows notice, rather than fact, pleading.  State ex                  
rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio                      
St.3d 545, 548-549, 605 N.E.2d 378, 381.  In a few cases, this                   
court has modified the standard by requiring the pleading of                     
specific facts rather than mere unsupported conclusions.  See                    
York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 145,                   
573 N.E.2d 1063, 1065; State ex rel. Carter v. Wilkinson                         
(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 65, 637 N.E.2d 1 (mandamus action                          
involving inmate claim); S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) (most original                     
actions filed in this court).  This case does not fall within                    
one of the foregoing limited exceptions to the general rule                      
requiring notice pleading.                                                       
     Appellant's complaint alleged the lack of an adequate                       
remedy at law as well as the other prerequisites to a mandamus                   
claim.  Although appellee correctly notes that mandamus cannot                   
be utilized as a substitute for an appeal from an interlocutory                  
order, State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d                   
176, 178, 631 N.E.2d 119, 121, an appeal may still be                            
inadequate if not complete in its nature, beneficial and                         
speedy.  Id.; State ex rel. Horwitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of                    
Common Pleas, Probate Div. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 323, 328, 605                   
N.E.2d 1005, 1009.  Based solely upon the complaint, we cannot                   
say that there is no "set of facts" consistent with the                          
conclusory allegation of "no adequate remedy at law" contained                   
in the pleading.  This comports with the general rule that a                     
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal based upon merit issues like the lack                  
of an adequate remedy at law is unusual and should be granted                    
with caution.  State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School                       
Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d     ,     N.E.2d    ,                    
decided today.                                                                   
     Judge Connor additionally contends that the complaint was                   
properly dismissed, since appellant has not demonstrated a                       
clear legal right to the requested relief.  R.C. 119.12                          
provides that, in certain administrative appeals:                                
     "Within thirty days after receipt of a notice of appeals                    
from an order in any case in which a hearing is required by                      
sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, the agency shall                  
prepare and certify to the court a complete record of the                        
proceedings in the case.  Failure of the agency to comply                        
within the time allowed, upon motion, shall cause the court to                   
enter a finding in favor of the party adversely affected.  ***"                  
     Under R.C. 119.12, where a record has been timely                           
submitted to a court of common pleas, albeit with an                             
unintentionally erroneous or omitted case number, in the                         
absence of prejudice to the party appealing the administrative                   
action, such submission shall not constitute a failure of                        
certification.  Arlow v. Ohio Rehab. Serv. Comm. (1986), 24                      
Ohio St.3d 153, 24 OBR 371, 493 N.E.2d 1337, syllabus.                           
Although appellant's complaint does specify consolidation of                     
appellant's administrative appeal with the appeal of another                     
protesting Ford dealer, it does not indicate whether a record                    
had been timely filed in the other appeal or if a record had                     
been timely submitted that unintentionally omitted the case                      
number of appellant's administrative appeal.  Consequently, the                  
allegations of appellant's complaint, construed most favorably                   
to it, do not demonstrate that the record in its administrative                  
case had been timely submitted to the court of common pleas                      
with an unintentionally erroneous or omitted case number.                        
Thus, the court of appeals' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal is not                     
justifiable on this alternative basis.  See State ex rel.                        
Carter v. Schotten (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d                      
306, 309 (reviewing court not authorized to reverse correct                      
judgment merely because of erroneous rationale).                                 
     Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is                        
reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.                     
                                       Judgment reversed                         
                                       and cause remanded.                       
     Moyer, C.J., Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and                     
Cook, JJ., concur.                                                               
     Douglas, concurs in judgment only.