Title: In re Disqualification of Celebrezze

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 94 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2001-Ohio-4095.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CELEBREZZE. 
CHOKEL v. CHOKEL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1228.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Absent extraordinary circumstances, judge 
will not be disqualified after having presided over lengthy proceedings in a 
pending case — Affiant was recently retained to represent plaintiff and 
should have been aware of prior disqualification orders. 
(No. 01-AP-039 — Decided May 16, 2001.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 
Domestic Relations Division case No. D256889. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by Jacob Kronenberg, 
counsel for the plaintiff, seeks the disqualification of Judge James P. Celebrezze from 
further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case, Charles B. Chokel v. Susan 
Jobe Chokel et al. 
 
Previously, I issued an order disqualifying Judge Celebrezze from all pending 
and future cases in which affiant or his sister represents one of the parties.  See In re 
Disqualification of Celebrezze (Apr. 26, 1996), No. 96-AP-050, unreported.  This 
order was supplemented with instructions to the Administrative Judge of the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, 
regarding the transfer of cases involving the Kronenbergs from Judge Celebrezze’s 
docket.  See In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (Apr. 6, 2000), No. 00-AP-034, 
unreported. 
 
Were the facts of this matter limited to those provided by affiant in his 
affidavit of disqualification, application of these prior disqualification orders would 
be appropriate.  However, in issuing the 1996 order, I noted that its application “to 
specific circumstances is subject to review and modification” to ensure its appropriate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
use.  In this matter, counsel for the defendant has filed a response to the affidavit of 
disqualification that provides additional information that is relevant to the request for 
Judge Celebrezze’s removal from this case.  The response suggests that this case has 
been pending before Judge Celebrezze for a lengthy period of time and indicates that, 
during the last year, Judge Celebrezze has presided over a contested hearing that has 
thus far lasted for eleven days.  Counsel’s response includes a copy of an opinion 
from the Eighth District Court of Appeals that contains additional detail regarding the 
nature of Judge Celebrezze’s involvement in the underlying case.  Most notably, that 
opinion contains repeated references by the appellate court to the complex nature of 
the underlying action.  Chokel v. Celebrezze (Dec. 19, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 
78355, unreported, 2000 WL 1900332. 
 
I have held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, a judge will not be 
subject to disqualification after having presided over lengthy proceedings in a 
pending case.  In re Disqualification of Light (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 604, 522 N.E.2d 
458, and In re Disqualification of Valen (1991), 73 Ohio St.3d 1204, 652 N.E.2d 793.  
Having reviewed the record before me and considering the involvement of Judge 
Celebrezze in a lengthy and complex case, I conclude that a greater injustice would 
occur if he were disqualified based solely on the fact that affiant has recently been 
retained to represent the plaintiff in this action.  Prior to accepting employment in this 
matter, affiant certainly was or should have been aware of the matters cited in the 
response filed by counsel for the defendant.  Under these circumstances, affiant and 
his client cannot presume disqualification of Judge Celebrezze based on my prior 
orders. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and 
is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Celebrezze. 
__________________