Case Title: State ex rel. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Sutula

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4249

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Sutula, 110 Ohio St.3d 201, 2006-Ohio-4249.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. METROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. 
SUTULA, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Sutula, 110 Ohio St.3d 201, 
2006-Ohio-4249.] 
Mandamus – R.C. 2701.10 and Gov.Jud.R. VI – Referral of civil case to retired 
judge – Case may not be referred for trial by jury. 
(No. 2006-0033 ─ Submitted May 9, 2006 ─ Decided August 30, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 87184, 2005-Ohio-6243. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for a 
writ of mandamus to compel a common pleas court judge to refer a case to a 
retired judge for a jury trial under R.C. 2701.10 and Gov.Jud.R. VI. 
{¶ 2} Appellant Cheryl Austin is the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice 
case against appellant MetroHealth Medical Center (“MetroHealth”) pending in 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  The case is assigned to Judge 
John D. Sutula. 
{¶ 3} On September 26, 2005, Austin and MetroHealth filed an 
agreement purporting to refer the case to a retired judge pursuant to R.C. 2701.10.  
Under the agreement, the retired judge would “[h]ear and determine all issues of 
law and fact which may hereafter arise in this case, preside over a jury which will 
receive evidence and render a judgment adjudicating the action or proceeding in 
its entirety, including all post-trial proceedings, if any.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 4} On October 13, 2005, Judge Sutula denied the parties’ request for a 
referral of the case to a retired judge.  Judge Sutula determined that the parties’ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
case could not be referred under R.C. 2701.10 because the agreement required a 
jury trial. 
{¶ 5} On October 20, 2005, Austin and MetroHealth filed a complaint in 
the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel 
Judge Sutula to refer the case to the retired judge in accordance with the parties’ 
agreement.  Judge Sutula filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On November 
23, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint. 
{¶ 6} This cause is now before the court upon Austin’s and 
MetroHealth’s appeal as of right. 
{¶ 7} Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their 
complaint for a writ of mandamus.  Under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), dismissal for failure 
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is proper if, after all material 
factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable 
inferences are made in appellants’ favor, it appears beyond doubt that they could 
prove no set of facts warranting the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.  
State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 290, 2004-Ohio-
6410, 819 N.E.2d 654, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, 
appellants had to establish a clear legal right to have the case referred to the 
retired judge for a jury trial under R.C. 2701.10 and Gov.Jud.R. VI, a clear legal 
duty on the part of Judge Sutula to refer the case, and the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. 
Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 334, 2006-Ohio-1065, 843 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 9} The court of appeals properly dismissed appellants’ mandamus 
action because it is beyond doubt that they could not establish either a clear legal 
right to a jury trial in cases referred pursuant to R.C. 2701.10 and Gov.Jud.R. VI 
or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of Judge Sutula to refer the case for 
a jury trial.  Pursuant to State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 110 Ohio St.3d 144, 
January Term, 2006 
3 
2006-Ohio-3459, 852 N.E.2d 145, paragraph one of the syllabus, jury trials are 
not authorized in civil actions referred to private judges under R.C. 2701.10 and 
Gov.Jud.R. VI. 
{¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, consistent with our decision in State ex 
rel. Russo v. McDonnell, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would grant the writ of mandamus. 
__________________ 
 
Sutter, O’Connell & Farchione Co., L.P.A., Joseph A. Farchione, and 
Christina J. Marshall; Friedman, Domiano & Smith Co., L.P.A., and Donna Kolis, 
for appellants. 
 
Kahn Kleinman, L.P.A., Robert A. Zimmerman, Michael H. Diamant, and 
Philip R. Bautista, for appellee. 
______________________