Title: State ex rel. Bridge v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas

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. Bridge v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
3327.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3327 
THE STATE EX REL. BRIDGE, APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY 
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bridge v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3327.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment denying request for writ of prohibition affirmed—
Municipal court was under no duty to dismiss the small-claims cases 
merely because the claims in the separate cases, when aggregated, 
exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the small-claims division of the 
municipal court. 
(No. 2012-0206—Submitted July 11, 2012—Decided July 25, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 11AP-140,  
2011-Ohio-6561. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, William W. Bridge III, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellees, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Richard S. Sheward, from 
exercising jurisdiction in Speeds Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Nations Constr., L.L.C., 
Franklin C.P. No. 07 CVH- 07-9820. 
{¶ 2} Appellees do not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction in 
the underlying case, which was transferred to the common pleas court by the 
Franklin County Municipal Court.  “[W]ithout a patent and unambiguous lack of 
jurisdiction, a court possessed of general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine 
its own jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate 
remedy by appeal.”  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-
54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 19.  The municipal court was under no duty to dismiss the 
small-claims cases, which it subsequently transferred to the common pleas court, 
merely because the claims in the separate cases, when aggregated, exceeded the 
monetary jurisdiction of the small-claims division of the municipal court.  See 
R.C. 1925.02(A)(1) (“a small claims division established under section 1925.01 of 
the Revised Code has jurisdiction in civil actions for the recovery of taxes and 
money only, for amounts not exceeding three thousand dollars, exclusive of 
interest and costs”).  Thus, Bridge’s reliance on State ex rel. Natl. Emp. Benefit 
Servs., Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 449 Ohio St.3d 49, 550 
N.E.2d 941 (1990), and Lance Langan Water Jetting, Inc. v. Tiger Gen., Inc., 9th 
Dist. No. 05CA0018-M, 2005-Ohio-4541, which each involved a single case that 
the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over, is misplaced. 
{¶ 3} Moreover, res judicata barred Bridge from filing a successive 
prohibition action when he could have raised his claims in his previous 
prohibition action.  Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 2002-Ohio-2217, 
767 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly denied Bridge’s claim for 
extraordinary relief in prohibition, and we affirm the court’s judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
William W. Bridge III, pro se. 
______________________