Title: State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle, 99 Ohio St.3d 46, 2003-Ohio-2460.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. FOGLE, APPELLANT, v. VILLAGE OF CARLISLE ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle, 99 Ohio St.3d 46, 2003-Ohio-2460.] 
Quo warranto — Complaint seeking relator’s reinstatement to his former position 
as village of Carlisle police sergeant and back pay and benefits after 
village accepted his resignation — Court of appeals’ dismissal of cause 
affirmed. 
(No. 2002-2238 — Submitted May 14, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Warren County, No. CA2002-09-097. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellee, the village of Carlisle, Ohio, employed appellant, Brad 
Fogle, as a police sergeant.  After being advised that termination proceedings 
would be brought against him if he did not resign, Fogle submitted his resignation 
in March 1999.  When the village refused to permit Fogle to rescind his 
resignation, he filed a complaint in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. 
{¶2} 
As part of his subsequently amended complaint, Fogle attempted to 
appeal from the termination of his employment by the village pursuant to R.C. 
2506.01.  The common pleas court granted the village’s motion and dismissed 
that portion of Fogle’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  The common pleas 
court granted Fogle’s request for Civ.R. 54(B) certification, and on appeal, the 
court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause to the common pleas court.  
Fogle v. Carlisle (Dec. 11, 2000), Warren App. No. CA2000-04-037, 2000 WL 
1819118. 
{¶3} 
The court of appeals,  after “[p]resuming [that] all factual 
allegations in the complaint are true and drawing all inferences in [Fogle’s] 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
favor,” determined that the common pleas court erred in finding that Fogle’s 
resignation was effective and that he was therefore not entitled to appeal under 
R.C. 2506.01.  Id.  We did not allow the village’s discretionary appeal from the 
court of appeals’ judgment.  Fogle v. Carlisle (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1508, 746 
N.E.2d 611. 
{¶4} 
In September 2002, Fogle applied in the court of appeals for leave 
to file a complaint for a writ of quo warranto, or in the alternative a writ of  
mandamus, against appellees, including the village.  Through the application and 
attachments, Fogle sought reinstatement to his former position as village police 
sergeant and back pay and benefits.  Appellees moved to strike or, alternatively, 
to dismiss Fogle’s application and complaints. 
{¶5} 
In November 2002, the court of appeals denied Fogle’s application 
and dismissed the cause. 
{¶6} 
In his appeal as of right, Fogle asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in not granting him either the requested writ of quo warranto or the writ of 
mandamus to reinstate him to his former position as a village police sergeant.  
Fogle claims that he has a clear legal right to reinstatement because of the court of 
appeals’ judgment in his previous appeal. 
{¶7} 
We find that Fogle’s claim lacks merit.  The court of appeals’ 
previous determination that the common pleas court erred in dismissing his 
administrative appeal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was not an ultimate resolution of the 
issue.  Instead, the court of appeals merely applied the appropriate Civ.R. 
12(B)(6) standard, which presumed the truth of all material factual allegations in 
Fogle’s complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom in Fogle’s favor.  See, 
e.g., State ex rel. Hummel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84, 2002-Ohio-3605, 771 
N.E.2d 853, ¶ 20. 
{¶8} 
Because there has not yet been any final determination that Fogle 
was wrongfully terminated from his employment with the village, he is not 
January Term, 2003 
3 
entitled to reinstatement.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of 
Rev. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 640, 644, 710 N.E.2d 706.  Therefore, Fogle’s reliance 
on the law-of-the-case doctrine and res judicata is unavailing. 
{¶9} 
Moreover, neither mandamus nor quo warranto will issue if there 
is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex rel. 
Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 96 Ohio St.3d 400, 2002-Ohio-
4906, 775 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 6; R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka (1994), 
71 Ohio St.3d 109, 110, 642 N.E.2d 353.  Fogle has an adequate remedy at law 
through his civil service appeal.  See State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 205, 
209, 648 N.E.2d 823. 
{¶10} Finally, Fogle’s quo warranto claim is barred by R.C. 2733.35 
because he brought his action more than three years after his cause of action 
arose.  State ex rel. E. Cleveland Fire Fighters’ Assn., Local 500, Internatl. Assn. 
of Fire Fighters v. Jenkins, 96 Ohio St.3d 68, 2002-Ohio-3527, 771 N.E.2d 251, ¶ 
13. 
{¶11} Therefore, the court of appeals correctly dismissed Fogle’s claims.  
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Dwight D. Brannon & Associates and Dwight D. Brannon, for appellant. 
 
Nicholas E. Subashi and Lynette Pisone Ballato, for appellees. 
__________________