Title: State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake, 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 2001-
Ohio-1606] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BECKER ET AL. v. CITY OF EASTLAKE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 502.] 
Elections — Mandamus sought to compel Eastlake City Council to place a 
proposed charter amendment concerning a municipal baseball stadium 
on either the November 6, 2001 general election or a special election 
ballot — Proper respondent not named — Writ denied, when. 
(No. 01-1606 — Submitted September 28, 2001 — Decided October 9, 2001.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On July 5, 2001, relators, Morris B. Becker, H.W. 
Spangenberg, and Stanley D. Leff, acting as a committee known as the Right to 
Vote Committee, filed with the clerk of council of respondent, city of Eastlake, a 
petition for submitting a proposed charter amendment to be placed on the 
November 6, 2001 election ballot.  The petition provided: 
 
“We, the undersigned, Electors of the CITY of EASTLAKE, Ohio, 
respectfully petition the legislative authority to forthwith provide by Ordinance, 
for the submission to the Electors of said municipality, the following proposed 
Amendment to the Charter of said city or village to-wit: 
 
“Shall the Charter of the City of Eastlake be amended to enact new Article 
X, Section 9 so that the same shall read as follows: 
 
“ ‘No ordinance, resolution, order, or other legislation involving the 
expenditure of money, including but not limited to City, State or Federal money, 
for the purpose of developing, constructing, leasing, or financing a Municipal 
Baseball Stadium, a Municipal Civic Center or any other facility similar thereto, 
shall be passed, or issued, by Eastlake City Council, or be authorized by any 
officer of the City, until first approved by a majority of the electors of the City of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Eastlake voting thereon at the next general or primary election occurring not less 
than sixty (60) days after the passage of such legislation. 
 
“ ‘Any and all legislation formerly passed by the City of Eastlake relating 
to the development, construction, leasing, or financing of a Municipal Baseball 
Stadium, which was not approved by a majority of the electors of the City as 
provided herein, including but not limited to Ordinance Number 2000-140, a copy 
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is repealed, but only with respect to 
the development, construction, leasing, and financing of a Municipal Baseball 
Stadium.’ ” 
 
Although not designated as Exhibit A, a copy of Ordinance No. 2000-140 
was attached to each petition part. 
 
Realtors’ July 5 petition consisted of forty-four petitions and contained 
2,032 unverified signatures.  On July 6, relators filed two additional petition parts 
containing thirty-four unverified signatures. 
 
On July 19, 2001, the clerk certified the sufficiency and validity of the 
signatures on the petition, finding that relators had “met the signature 
requirement.”  By letter dated August 23, 2001, the Eastlake Director of Law 
submitted an opinion to the president of the Eastlake City Council specifying 
numerous defects in relators’ petition, including that the proposed charter 
amendment failed to include a title. 
 
On August 28, 2001, one of relators’ attorneys addressed a letter to the 
Eastlake City Council that responded to the law director’s opinion and requested 
to be heard by council at its regular meeting scheduled for that evening.  In the 
letter, relators’ counsel stated, “This office has already drafted a lawsuit in 
mandamus against each member of the City Council, but does not wish to proceed 
in that manner.” 
 
At the regular council meeting held on August 28, 2001, the city council 
denied relators’ request to have the proposed charter amendment placed on the 
January Term, 2001 
3 
November 6, 2001 election ballot.  The city council determined that the petition 
did not comply with the requirements as to form and that the proposed charter 
amendment was misleading, confusing, and unconstitutional. 
 
On September 6, 2001, relators filed this expedited election case seeking a 
writ of mandamus to compel the city council to submit the proposed charter 
amendment to the electors on the November 6, 2001 general election ballot and 
asking that the court dispense with or shorten the notice period set forth in 
Sections 8 and 9, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.  Relators alternatively 
requested a writ of mandamus to compel the city to hold an immediate special 
election at which the proposed charter amendment would be submitted to the 
electors.  Although relators sought relief against Eastlake City Council, they 
named only the city of Eastlake as a respondent.  After the city filed an answer, 
the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to the expedited schedule set forth in 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  This cause is now before us for a consideration of the merits, 
relators’ motion to add additional parties, and respondent’s motion to strike 
relator’s merit brief. 
Motion to Add Additional Parties 
 
After the city raised as an affirmative defense in its answer that relators’ 
complaint failed to name as respondents the Eastlake City Council or its 
individual members, relators moved to add the city council and its members as 
respondents.  Relators attached an amended complaint to their motion and 
requested that if the court granted the motion, it direct the clerk of this court to 
file the attachment as the amended complaint and to issue a summons to each 
added respondent. 
 
Leave of court or written consent of the adverse party is required to obtain 
amendment of a complaint after a responsive pleading is served. Civ.R. 15(A); 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(2) (“All original actions shall proceed under the Ohio Rules of 
Civil Procedure, unless clearly inapplicable”); State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 631, 716 N.E.2d 704, 707.  The general policy of the 
rules favors liberal amendment of the pleadings.  Civ.R. 15(A); Grendell at 631, 
716 N.E.2d at 707. 
 
Relators’ motion to add the city council and its members as respondents is 
denied.  Relators’ amended complaint contains no affidavit, as required by 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B), which provides, “All complaints shall contain a specific 
statement of facts upon which the claim for relief is based, [and] shall be 
supported by an affidavit of the relator or counsel specifying the details of the 
claim * * *.”  By failing to comply with the S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) affidavit 
requirement, relators’ amended complaint is defective and subject to dismissal.  
See, generally, State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. Akron (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 536, 
740 N.E.2d 252; 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. 
 
Moreover, granting relators’ motion to add respondents at this date would 
extend the schedule for the presentation of evidence and briefs in this expedited 
election case past the October 2 date for having absentee ballots printed and ready 
for use.  See R.C. 3509.01.  This additional delay would not be consistent with 
relators’ duty to act with the diligence and promptness required in election-related 
matters.  See, generally, State ex rel. Hills Communities, Inc. v. Clermont Cty. Bd. 
of Elections (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 465, 467, 746 N.E.2d 1115, 1117 (“If a party 
seeking extraordinary relief in an election-related matter fails to exercise the 
requisite diligence, laches may bar the action”).  As the city claims, relators 
contended on the same date as the council’s decision not to submit the proposed 
charter amendment to the electorate that they had already drafted a mandamus 
action against the members of city council.  But their filed complaint failed to 
name the city council or its members as respondents, and their amended 
complaint failed to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
January Term, 2001 
5 
 
Therefore, despite the general policy in favor of granting leave to amend 
when justice requires, Civ.R. 15(A), we deny relators’ motion because their 
amended complaint is defective and would further delay this expedited case based 
on errors that should have been resolved by relators before instituting this action 
for extraordinary relief. 
Motion to Strike 
 
Eastlake moves to strike relators’ brief and to dismiss this cause with 
prejudice.  The city claims that relators’ merit brief does not comply with the 
requirements set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. VI, as made applicable to original actions 
by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(8). 
 
Although relators’ brief violates S.Ct.Prac.R. VI by not including a table 
of contents and a table of authorities, the fundamental tenet of judicial review in 
Ohio is that courts should decide cases on their merits.  See State ex rel. Wilcox v. 
Seidner (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 412, 414, 667 N.E.2d 1220, 1221.  Furthermore, 
procedural motions are generally inappropriate in expedited election matters.  See 
State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
107, 111, 712 N.E.2d 696, 700.  Based on the foregoing, we deny the motion. 
Mandamus 
 
Relators assert that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the 
city council to place the proposed charter amendment on either the November 6 
general election or a special election ballot.  In order to be entitled to the 
requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, relators must establish a clear legal 
right to placement of the proposed charter amendment on the election ballot, a 
corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the named respondent, and the lack 
of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  Sekermestrovich, 90 
Ohio St.3d at 537, 740 N.E.2d at 254. 
 
Relators name only the city of Eastlake as a respondent in their complaint, 
but they allege no duty on the city’s part concerning their proposed charter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
amendment.  Section 7, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution authorizes 
municipal corporations to adopt and amend a home rule charter, and Sections 8 
and 9, Article XVIII prescribe the procedures for adopting and amending a 
charter.  State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 334, 336, 617 N.E.2d 1120, 1122.  Section 9 of Article XVIII, which 
incorporates the requirements of Section 8, allows, and on petition by ten percent 
of the electors, requires, the legislative authority of any city, e.g., the city council, 
to “forthwith” authorize by ordinance an election on the charter amendment issue.  
See State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment Petition v. Avon (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 590, 592, 693 N.E.2d 205, 207; see, also, Section 1, Article V of the 
Eastlake Charter, which vests all of the legislative powers of the city in the city 
council.  These sections establish that the duty alleged by relators is held by the 
legislative authority of Eastlake, i.e., the Eastlake City Council, rather than 
Eastlake itself. 
 
Relators’ complaint is defective because they did not name the proper 
respondent, and the named respondent does not have a duty to perform any of the 
requested acts.  See State ex rel. Sherrills v. State (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 133, 134, 
742 N.E.2d 651; State ex rel. Keener v. Amberley (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 292, 293, 
685 N.E.2d 1247, 1247-1248.  In addition, the city’s answer alerted relators to this 
defect, i.e., failure to name the city council and its members as parties, even 
though they sought to compel duties owed by council and its members.  Cf. id. 
(relator named village but not village council or its members as parties).  But 
relators’ attempt to add these respondents failed because their amended complaint 
did not meet the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) and granting the motion to 
amend at this late date would make resolution of this case before the statutory 
deadline for absentee ballots impossible. 
 
Further, the city’s memorandum in opposition to relators’ motion to 
amend pointed out the lack of an affidavit in violation of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B), 
January Term, 2001 
7 
but relators did not file a new motion for leave to amend with an amended 
complaint complying with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
 
In the absence of any alleged duty on the part of Eastlake, the requested 
writ of mandamus must be denied because “[c]ourts are not authorized to create 
the legal duty enforceable in mandamus.”  State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill 
Community Med. Ctr. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 459, 461, 746 N.E.2d 1108, 1111. 
 
Moreover, even assuming that relators’ complaint sufficiently designates 
the appropriate respondent, the city council need not submit a proposed charter 
amendment to the electorate unless it is satisfied with the sufficiency of the 
petitions and that all statutory requirements are fairly met.  State ex rel. 
Spadafora v. Toledo City Council (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 546, 549, 644 N.E.2d 
393, 395; Semik, 67 Ohio St.3d at 335-336, 617 N.E.2d at 1122.  Portions of 
pertinent statutes that do not conflict with the Ohio Constitution and the city 
charter apply.  Morris v. Macedonia City Council (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 52, 55, 
641 N.E.2d 1075, 1078; see, also, Section 2, Article XI of Eastlake Charter (“All 
general laws of the State of Ohio as now or hereafter enacted which are not in 
conflict with this Charter * * * shall continue in full force and effect until 
amended or repealed”) and Section 5, Article XI of Eastlake Charter (“The 
submission of a proposed amendment to the electors shall be governed by the 
provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and to such extent as the 
Constitution shall fail to provide therefor, the Council shall determine the manner 
of such submission”). 
 
Relators’ petition did not comply with R.C. 731.31, which requires that 
“each part of any initiative petition shall contain a full and correct copy of the title 
and text of the proposed ordinance or other measure.”  See Morris, 71 Ohio St.3d 
at 55, 641 N.E.2d at 1078 (nonconflicting portions of R.C. 731.31 apply to charter 
amendment petitions); Spadafora, 71 Ohio St.3d at 549, 644 N.E.2d at 395, 
applying an R.C. 3519.06(D) requirement for initiative petitions to a petition 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
seeking to place a proposed charter amendment on the election ballot.  Relators’ 
petition specifies no title for the proposed charter amendment adding a section, 
even though existing Eastlake Charter sections have titles.  Omitting the title of a 
proposed measure is a “fatal defect because it interferes with the petition’s ability 
to fairly and substantially present the issue and might mislead electors.”  State ex 
rel. Hazel v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 165, 167, 685 
N.E.2d 224, 226; cf. State ex rel. Esch v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections (1991), 61 
Ohio St.3d 595, 597, 575 N.E.2d 835, 837 (“More so than the text, the title 
immediately alerts signers to the nature of proposed legislation.  As this notice 
helps prevent the signers from being misled, we * * * hold that the instant petition 
must contain a title for the proposed ordinance as required by R.C. 731.31”). 
 
Relators’ reliance on R.C. 3519.21 to assert otherwise is meritless because 
R.C. Chapter 3519 is limited to statewide initiative and referendum petitions.  See 
State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 228, 685 N.E.2d 754, 
758. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the city council had no duty to submit the 
proposed charter amendment to the electors, because the applicable statutory 
requirements were not all met.  Therefore, relators are not entitled to the requested 
writ of mandamus, and we deny the writ.  This holding renders moot the city’s 
remaining defenses, e.g., laches, lack of proper election falsification statement, 
the unconstitutionality of the proposed charter amendment, etc. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
_______________ 
 
Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., Patrick J. Perotti, Melvyn E. Resnick 
and Jodi Littman Tomaszewski, for relators. 
January Term, 2001 
9 
 
Theodore R. Klammer, Eastlake Law Director, and Donald J. McTigue, 
Assistant Law Director, for respondent. 
_______________