Title: State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-67.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-67 
THE STATE EX REL. DUNLAP v. SARKO ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-67.] 
Mandamus—Jurisdictional-priority rule—Under the jurisdictional-priority rule 
we lack jurisdiction to resolve relator’s mandamus claim—Cause 
dismissed. 
(No. 2012-0369—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided January 16, 2013.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action in which relator, Scott Dunlap, requests a 
writ of mandamus against respondents, Violet Township Zoning Inspector Kelly 
Sarko, Violet Township Director of Operations William Yaple, Violet Township 
Fiscal Officer Chris Smith, Violet Township Trustees Terry Dunlap Sr., Harry 
Myers Jr., and Gary Weltlich, Violet Township Fire Department Office Manager 
Kristi Huskey, and attorney William L. Loveland.  He requests the writ to compel 
respondents to (1) make certain requested records available for inspection and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
copying without further delay, (2) prepare, file, and maintain full and accurate 
records of proceedings, accounts, and transactions of the board of township 
trustees and to conduct all meetings in public, except for properly called executive 
sessions, (3) execute and uphold their affirmative statutory duties, and (4) comply 
with the prohibition against the destruction and damage of records.  He also 
requests that he be awarded costs, including reasonable attorney fees. 
Analysis 
Scope of Argument 
{¶ 2} Relator’s filings, including his amended complaint, evidence, and 
briefs, border on the incomprehensible.  Relator’s numerous public-records 
requests apparently stemmed from his unsuccessful application for zoning 
variances and his complaint to the township concerning Violet Township Trustee 
Terry Dunlap Sr.’s use of his property, which is near relator’s property, for 
shooting firearms and for concealed-weapons-permit training.  But relator’s 
filings are unclear.  For example, although he specifies eight propositions of law 
in the table of contents of his merit brief, he includes an argument on only the first 
of these eight propositions.  Relator also includes a heading labeled “conclusion” 
at the end of his brief, but he does not include any accompanying text. 
{¶ 3} We will not address the propositions and claims for which relator 
does not present any argument.  See State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 119 Ohio 
St.3d 391, 2008-Ohio-4788, 894 N.E.2d 686, ¶ 26 (court will not address public-
records claim in mandamus case when relator did not include an argument related 
to that claim in his merit brief); State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner, 114 
Ohio St.3d 386, 2007-Ohio-3780, 872 N.E.2d 912, ¶ 26, fn. 4 (court need not 
address claim for writ of mandamus that was raised in complaint but was not 
specifically argued in merit brief). 
{¶ 4} Instead, in his merit brief, relator expressly restricts the scope of 
this mandamus action to his May 18, 2011 and October 17, 2011 public-records 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
requests:  “At issue in this case, are the Relator’s May 18 and October 17, 2011 
public records requests.”  In his May 18, 2011 request sent by certified mail to 
Violet Township Fiscal Assistant Rochelle Menningen, relator requested “copies 
of any and all invoices from Loveland & Brosius LLC from October 1, 2010 
through May 17, 2011 and copies of the office appointment calendars of Bill 
Yaple and Kelly Sarko for the same time period.”  In his October 17, 2011 
request, which was also addressed to Menningen, relator requested “copies of any 
and all agendas, meeting notes/minutes (both hand written and those recorded via 
a word processing program), from all parties in attendance, and the stated purpose 
of the meeting” for a meeting held at Violet Township Trustee Terry Dunlap Sr.’s 
residence and attended by township attorney Loveland, Township Zoning 
Inspector Sarko, and Township Director of Operations Yaple.  In the request, 
relator also requested a copy of the “detailed invoice of this meeting from Violet 
Township attorney:  Loveland Brosius, LLC.” 
{¶ 5} Consequently, we consider relator’s claim in the limited context of 
these requests. 
Prior Mandamus Cases 
{¶ 6} On November 18, 2011, relator filed an action in the Court of 
Appeals for Fairfield County for a writ of mandamus to compel Violet Township 
Fiscal Officer Smith and his assistant, Menningen, to provide him with copies of 
the records requested by him in his May 18, 2011 and October 17, 2011 records 
requests.  On September 12, 2012, the court of appeals denied the writ based on 
its holding that the township officials had provided relator with the requested 
records and that the redacted portions of the attorney billing invoices were 
protected by attorney-client privilege.  State ex rel. Dunlap v. Smith, 5th Dist. No. 
11-CA-60, 2012-Ohio-4239. 
{¶ 7} On February 21, 2012, relator filed a second mandamus action in 
the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County, this time naming the Violet Township 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Board of Trustees, Violet Township Fiscal Officer Smith, and the individual 
township trustees as respondents.  In their motion to remand in the present case, 
respondents noted that relator’s second court of appeals case requests relief 
similar to that requested here.  As of the date that briefing was completed in the 
mandamus case before this court, relator’s second court of appeals mandamus 
case remained pending. 
Jurisdictional-Priority Rule 
{¶ 8} “Under Section 2(B)(1)(b), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, the 
Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction in mandamus actions * * *.”  
State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 59, 734 
N.E.2d 811 (2000); see also R.C. 2731.02 (“The writ of mandamus may be 
allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or the court of common pleas 
* * *”). 
{¶ 9} Under the jurisdictional-priority rule, however, “ ‘[a]s between 
[state] courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal whose power is first invoked 
by the institution of proper proceedings acquires jurisdiction, to the exclusion of 
all other tribunals, to adjudicate upon the whole issue and to settle the rights of the 
parties.’ ”  State ex rel. Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan, 17 Ohio St.3d 54, 56, 
476 N.E.2d 1060 (1985), quoting State ex rel. Phillips v. Polcar, 50 Ohio St.2d 
279, 364 N.E.2d 33 (1977), syllabus. 
{¶ 10} To be sure, it is a condition of the jurisdictional-priority rule that 
the claims and parties be the same in both cases, so “[i]f the second case is not for 
the same cause of action, nor between the same parties, the former suit will not 
prevent the latter.”  See State ex rel. Judson v. Spahr, 33 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 515 
N.E.2d 911 (1987). 
{¶ 11} Nevertheless, we have also recognized that the jurisdictional-
priority rule can apply even when the causes of action and relief requested are not 
exactly the same, as long as the actions present part of the same “whole issue.”  
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 
N.E.2d 809, ¶ 29; State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 647 
N.E.2d 807 (1995). 
{¶ 12} Here, relator instituted multiple public-records mandamus actions 
in  multiple courts—the court of appeals and this court—against essentially the 
same parties—Violet Township officials and the township entity responsible for 
responding to his May 18, 2011 and October 17, 2011 records requests.  These 
duplicative mandamus cases manifestly present part of the same “whole issue.”  
Relators should not be permitted to file concurrent mandamus actions in multiple 
courts to obtain the extraordinary relief they could obtain in a single mandamus 
action in one court.  This is exactly the type of behavior that the jurisdictional-
priority rule was intended to prohibit so as to promote judicial economy and to 
avoid inconsistent results. 
{¶ 13} Therefore, based on the jurisdictional-priority rule, relator’s 
previously filed court of appeals mandamus cases prevent this court from 
exercising original jurisdiction in mandamus over relator’s claims here.  And 
although respondents do not raise this contention, it is axiomatic that “[s]ubject-
matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and is properly raised by this court sua 
sponte.”  State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1, 2011-Ohio-5028, 959 N.E.2d 516, 
¶ 11. 
Pending Motions 
{¶ 14} We deny relator’s pending motions to supplement the record and to 
submit additional evidence, for the issuance of peremptory or other writs, for 
leave to file a second amended complaint, and to file a supplemental merit brief.  
Justice does not require our giving relator an opportunity to raise additional 
claims in a case that should never have been instituted here once he chose the 
Fifth District Court of Appeals to initially raise claims based on the same issue. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 15} We also deny relator’s motion requesting oral argument, because 
the parties’ briefs are sufficient for the court to resolve this case. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Because under the jurisdictional-priority rule we lack jurisdiction 
to resolve relator’s mandamus claim, the cause is dismissed. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Fortune Law Limited and Wesley T. Fortune, for relator. 
 
Poling Law, Paul-Michael La Fayette, and Doug Holthus, for respondents. 
_______________________