Title: State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-
Ohio-323.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BOCCUZZI ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY 
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 
 112 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-Ohio-323.] 
Mandamus — Pleading specific facts — No legal duty to separately award a 
portion of a joint construction project — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1038 ─ Submitted January 10, 2007 ─ Decided February 7, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 86333, 2006-Ohio-1835. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an amended 
complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel county commissioners to award the 
sanitary-sewer portion of a joint construction project between the county and a 
city separately from the rest of the project and to refund the amount paid by the 
city in excess of the amount it would have paid if the sanitary-sewer project had 
been awarded separately.  Because the county commissioners had no legal duty to 
separately award the sanitary-sewer portion of the project, we affirm. 
Joint Construction Project:  Bidding and Award 
{¶ 2} In 1980, Cuyahoga County and the city of Parma entered into an 
agreement to improve Pleasant Valley Road from York Road to State Road.  In 
1989, the Parma City Council adopted Resolution No. 395-89, which requested 
that the Cuyahoga County Engineer include the installation of sanitary sewers in 
the joint construction project.  In the resolution, the city agreed to assume a share 
of the cost of the sanitary sewers.  In 2003, the Parma City Council passed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Resolution No. 307-03, which assessed the cost of constructing sanitary sewers on 
the property bounding and abutting the improvement. 
{¶ 3} Appellees Cuyahoga County Commissioners requested bids for the 
entire construction project, which included the sanitary-sewer improvement 
requested by Parma.  The low bidder was Blaze Construction, Inc., which bid a 
total of $14,884,892.80, including $1,944,909 for the sanitary-sewer portion of 
the project.  The next lowest bidder was Fabrizi Trucking & Paving Co., Inc., 
which bid $14,917,044.50, including $1,346,527.50 for the sanitary-sewer 
improvement.  On January 20, 2004, the county awarded the contract for the 
entire construction project to Blaze.  Blaze subcontracted the sanitary-sewer work 
to Fabrizi and reduced its charge for that portion of the project by $147,000.  
Parma later agreed to contribute an additional $250,000 towards the cost of the 
sanitary-sewer improvement, thereby reducing the assessment on the lands 
abutting the improvement. 
{¶ 4} In May 2004, the county and the city amended their project 
agreement to provide that Parma’s portion of the sanitary-sewer improvement 
costs would be that amount in excess of $1 million.  The city acknowledged in the 
supplemental agreement with the county that Blaze had been awarded the 
construction contract.  The city thereafter approved the supplemental agreement. 
Taxpayer Demands 
{¶ 5} Appellant Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association is an 
unincorporated association of property owners and taxpayers who own property 
located on West Pleasant Valley Road in Parma.  Appellants Dominic and Angela 
Boccuzzi and James and Carolyn Fraetig are members of the association.  
Appellants own land that bounds, abuts, and is specially benefited by the sanitary-
sewer improvement project. 
{¶ 6} Appellants made a taxpayer demand on the Parma Law Director to 
bring an action to compel the performance of duties enjoined by law under the 
January Term, 2007 
3 
contract regarding the award and bidding process.  Appellants claimed that the 
sanitary-sewer portion of the construction contract should have been awarded 
separately from the rest of the contract.  Appellants made an identical taxpayer 
demand on the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney.  Appellants’ demands 
were either rejected or ignored. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 7} On April 29, 2005, appellants filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus against appellees, 
Cuyahoga County Commissioners, the county treasurer, and the director of the 
county office of budget and management.  Appellants subsequently filed an 
amended complaint, to which appellees filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 
state a claim upon which relief in mandamus could be granted. 
{¶ 8} Instead of filing a timely memorandum in response to the motion 
to dismiss, appellants filed a second amended complaint.  In their second 
amended complaint, as in their previous complaints, appellants requested a writ of 
mandamus (1) to compel the county commissioners to award the project to Blaze 
as the general overall contractor in the amount of $14,844,892.80 and to Fabrizi 
as the contractor of the sanitary-sewer improvement in the amount of 
$1,346,527.50, (2) to compel appellees to charge Parma an estimated cost of 
$199,527.50 for the sanitary-sewer improvement, and (3) to compel appellees to 
refund to Parma any amounts paid for the sanitary-sewer improvement in excess 
of the estimated cost of $199,527.50.  Appellants alleged that the county 
commissioners “abused [their] discretion, acted in bad faith, acted in conflict of 
interest and self dealing, acted arbitrarily, and acted capriciously in awarding the 
bid for the Project and Sanitary Sewer Improvement solely to Blaze Construction, 
Inc.” 
{¶ 9} More specifically, appellants claimed that the commissioners had a 
duty to award the sanitary-sewer portion of the project separately to the lowest 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
bidder, Fabrizi, pursuant to R.C. 307.90 and 153.61, which govern the joint-
construction agreements between the county and the city.  The court of appeals 
subsequently ordered appellants to file a brief in opposition to appellees’ motion 
to dismiss, but appellants did not file any brief. 
{¶ 10} On April 11, 2006, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion 
and dismissed appellants’ second amended mandamus complaint. 
{¶ 11} This cause is now before the court upon appellants’ appeal as of 
right. 
Mandamus:  Separate Awards of Construction Contract 
{¶ 12} Appellants assert that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their 
second amended 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. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. v. Sutula, 110 Ohio St.3d 201, 
2006-Ohio-4249, 852 N.E.2d 722, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 13} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, 
appellants had to establish a clear legal right to a separate award of the contract 
for the sanitary-sewer improvement, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part 
of the county commissioners to make the separate award, and the lack of an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Dayton Law Library 
Assn. v. White, 110 Ohio St.3d 335, 2006-Ohio-4573, 853 N.E.2d 651, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 14} Appellants claim that they are entitled to the writ based upon R.C. 
307.90 and 153.61.  Under R.C. 307.90(A), with respect to boards of county 
commissioners, the “award of all contracts subject to sections 307.86 to 307.92 of 
the Revised Code shall be made to the lowest and best bidder.”  Pursuant to R.C. 
153.61, “[a]ny county or counties and any municipal corporation or municipal 
January Term, 2007 
5 
corporations may enter into an agreement providing for the joint construction, 
acquisition, or improvement of any public work, public building, or other 
permanent improvement benefiting the parties thereto and providing for the joint 
management, occupancy, maintenance, and repair thereof.” 
{¶ 15} In construing a comparable competitive-bidding statute for 
municipalities, we observed: 
{¶ 16} “Generally, courts in this state should be reluctant to substitute 
their judgment for that of [public] officials in determining which party is the 
‘lowest and best bidder.’  ‘The rule is generally accepted that, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, public officers, administrative officers and public 
boards, within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred by law, will be presumed to 
have properly performed their duties and not to have acted illegally but regularly 
and in a lawful manner.  All legal intendments are in favor of the administrative 
action.’ ”  Cedar Bay Constr., Inc. v. Fremont (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 19, 21, 552 
N.E.2d 202, quoting State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 
Ohio St. 581, 590, 50 O.O. 465, 113 N.E.2d 14. 
{¶ 17} There is nothing in either R.C. 307.90 or 153.61 that requires a 
county or a city to separately bid different portions of a construction project.  Nor 
is there anything in the agreements between Cuyahoga County and Parma 
imposing such a duty.  In fact, the city specifically requested that the sanitary-
sewer improvement be included in the joint project─for the express benefit of the 
abutting landowners like appellants─and the city approved the county’s award of 
the entire construction project to Blaze. 
{¶ 18} “In mandamus proceedings, the creation of the legal duty that a 
relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative branch of 
government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty enforceable in 
mandamus.”  State ex rel. Lecklider v. School Emp. Retirement Sys., 104 Ohio 
St.3d 271, 2004-Ohio-6586, 819 N.E.2d 289, ¶ 23; State ex rel. Union Cty. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Veterans Serv. Comm. v. Parrott, 108 Ohio St.3d 302, 2006-Ohio-92, 843 N.E.2d 
750, ¶ 9.  Again, appellants cite no applicable statutory provision here that would 
justify their requested relief of a separate award of the sanitary-sewer 
improvement portion of the project. 
{¶ 19} Appellants’ additional conclusory allegations of abuse of 
discretion, bad faith, conflict of interest, self-interest, and self-dealing by the 
commissioners were also insufficient to withstand dismissal.  Loc.App.R. 
45(B)(1)(a) of the Eighth District Court of Appeals requires that in original 
actions in the court of appeals, “[a]ll complaints must contain the specific 
statements of fact upon which the claim of illegality is based and must be 
supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the 
claim.  Absent such detail and attachments, the complaint is subject to dismissal.”  
This local rule is comparable to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B), which “requires the 
pleading of specific facts in mandamus actions in this court rather than 
unsupported conclusions.”  State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 
86 Ohio St.3d 385, 390, 715 N.E.2d 179; see, also, State ex rel. Edwards v. 
Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 109, 647 N.E.2d 
799 (court rule of practice requires specific-fact pleading in all original actions 
except habeas corpus).  In fact, despite appellants’ claim that the county took 
advantage of the city in its award of the bid for the joint project to Blaze, it is 
uncontroverted that the city approved that award. 
{¶ 20} Finally, appellants’ reliance on a newspaper article to support their 
conclusory allegations that Blaze had a “reputation * * * for inside deals, shoddy 
work and excessive and questionable job change orders” was properly rejected by 
the court of appeals.  Cf. State ex rel. Miller v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
103 Ohio St.3d 477, 2004-Ohio-5532, 817 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 15, and cases cited therein 
(newspaper article did not constitute appropriate evidence).  In addition, even if 
these conclusory allegations were credited, they would support a finding that no 
January Term, 2007 
7 
part of the contract should have been awarded to Blaze and not, as appellants 
request, that all of the contract except for the sanitary-sewer portion of the 
contract should have been awarded to Blaze. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed 
appellants’ mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief in 
mandamus could be granted.  The county commissioners had no legal duty to 
separately award the sanitary-sewer portion of the joint construction project.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Phillips & Co., L.P.A. and Gerald W. Phillips, for appellants. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
______________________