Title: State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., 92 Ohio St.3d 324, 2001-Ohio-203.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SHEMO, TRUSTEE, ET AL. v. CITY OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS 
ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 324.] 
Mandamus sought to compel city of Mayfield Heights et al. to approve relators’ 
application for road improvement plans — Motion for expedited 
consideration granted — Motion for peremptory writ denied and cause 
dismissed without prejudice. 
(No. 01-929 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided July 18, 2001.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION. 
__________________ 
 
On consideration of relators’ motion for expedited consideration of their 
motion for peremptory writ, 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for expedited consideration be, and 
hereby is, granted. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that relators’ motion for peremptory writ be, 
and hereby is, denied, and that the cause be, and hereby is, dismissed without 
prejudice for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs separately. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents, would grant the peremptory writ, and 
concurs in the analysis of the nature of the defect in relators’ complaint found in 
the concurring opinion of Pfeifer, J. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment denying relators’ 
motion for peremptory writ and in the dismissal of the cause without prejudice.  I 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
write separately, however, to specify the nature of the defect in relators’ 
complaint in order to limit its recurrence in this and future cases. 
 
Relators failed to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B), which requires that 
“[a]ll complaints * * * shall be supported by an affidavit of the relator or counsel 
specifying the details of the claim.”  That affidavit must be “ ‘based on personal 
knowledge.’ ”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. Akron (2001), 90 
Ohio St.3d 536, 538, 740 N.E.2d 252, 254, quoting State ex rel. Nix v. Cleveland 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 379, 384, 700 N.E.2d 12, 17.  Relator Shemo’s verification 
of the complaint does not state that it is based on personal knowledge, and an 
affidavit of relator Shemo contained in relators’ compendium of exhibits that is 
based on his personal knowledge does not cover all of the necessary details of 
relators’ claim for extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Dismissal of relators’ case 
is thus required.  See Sekermestrovich, 90 Ohio St.3d at 538-539, 740 N.E.2d at 
254-255; Logan v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1423, 702 
N.E.2d 433; Goist v. Seventh Dist. Court (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1452, 680 N.E.2d 
1024. 
 
Nevertheless, I agree that the dismissal should be without prejudice.  
Pursuant to Civ.R. 41(B)(3), as made applicable to this case by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(2), 
this court has the discretion to make an involuntary dismissal with or without 
prejudice for failure to comply with rules like S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B).  See 
Pembaur v. Leis (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 89, 1 OBR 125, 437 N.E.2d 1199.  We need 
not automatically dismiss with prejudice all original actions that fail to comply 
with the affidavit requirement of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
 
In exercising our discretion here, it is evident that relators’ noncompliance 
with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) did not involve a complete failure to file an affidavit.  
Relators did attempt to verify their complaint and additionally filed an affidavit 
based on personal knowledge that supported some of the details of their 
mandamus claim.  And relators’ allegations, if ultimately established, specify 
January Term, 2001 
3 
respondents’ violation of a 1997 common pleas court order that we unanimously 
reinstated last year.  Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 7, 722 N.E.2d 
1018. 
 
Therefore, under these unique circumstances, relators should not be 
forever barred from raising their claim for extraordinary relief based on their 
partial noncompliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B).  See State ex rel. Montgomery 
v. R & D Chem. Co. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 202, 204, 648 N.E.2d 821, 823, 
quoting DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 193, 23 O.O.3d 
210, 213, 431 N.E.2d 644, 647 (“ ‘Fairness and justice are best served when a 
court disposes of a case on the merits’ ”). 
 
However, I would further caution relators, as well as other prospective 
relators, that future violations of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) may be subject to dismissal 
with prejudice.  See Sekermestrovich, Logan, and Goist.  Flagrant, substantial 
disregard for court rules justifies a dismissal with prejudice.  See Quonset Hut, 
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 684 N.E.2d 319, 321, citing 
DeHart, 69 Ohio St.2d at 193, 23 O.O.3d at 213, 431 N.E.2d at 647.  This case 
should provide prospective relators with sufficient warning regarding the potential 
consequences of not fully complying with the affidavit requirement of 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B).  Much like an umpire giving a pitcher a warning that the 
next pitch aimed at a batter’s head may lead to his ejection, attorneys are similarly 
warned here. 
__________________ 
 
Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson Co., L.P.A., Sheldon Berns, 
Benjamin J. Ockner  and Robert A. Zimmerman, for relators. 
__________________