Title: State ex rel. Kralik v. Zwelling

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Kralik v. Zwelling, 101 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-301.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. KRALIK, APPELLANT, v. ZWELLING, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Kralik v. Zwelling, 101 Ohio St.3d 134, 2004-Ohio-301.] 
Mandamus sought to compel common pleas court judge to confirm an 
arbitration award and enter judgment on it or show cause why he had 
not done so — Writ of procedendo sought to compel common pleas court 
judge to proceed with a hearing and determination on relator’s 
application to reduce the arbitration award to judgment — Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of actions for writs of mandamus and procedendo 
reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings, when. 
(No. 2003-1545 — Submitted December 1, 2003 — Decided February 11, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, No. CT03-0034. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On May 28, 2002, Zanesville Heart Specialists, Inc. (“Zanesville 
Heart”), and its two shareholders, Peter E. Jensen, M.D., and appellant, Michael 
R. Kralik, M.D., agreed to provide cardiothoracic services for Genesis HealthCare 
System (“Genesis”) in Zanesville, Ohio.  In November 2002, Genesis notified 
Zanesville Heart that it was terminating the agreement because Zanesville Heart 
had failed to remove Kralik from its service. 
{¶2} 
Kralik then filed suit in the Muskingum County Court of Common 
Pleas seeking, inter alia, an injunction restraining Genesis from wrongfully 
terminating the agreement and damages for breach of contract.  Pursuant to the 
parties’ agreement, Kralik’s claims were referred to arbitration. 
{¶3} 
On June 20, 2003, arbitrators awarded Kralik $249,600 from 
Genesis for its premature termination of the agreement. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶4} 
On June 24, 2003, Kralik applied for the common pleas court to 
reduce the arbitration award to judgment.  Genesis opposed the application and 
requested that the court “hold the arbitration award in abeyance pending 
resolution of a motion for reconsideration [Genesis] plans to file with the 
Arbitration Panel assigned to this matter.”  Genesis claimed that “it would be 
premature to reduce the award to judgment until the motion for reconsideration is 
fully adjudicated.”  In response, Kralik cited precedent holding that an arbitration 
panel lacked authority to reconsider an award.  On June 27, 2003, appellee, Judge 
Howard S. Zwelling of the common pleas court, stayed consideration of Kralik’s 
application “until a decision has been rendered by the Arbitration Panel with 
respect to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by [Genesis].” 
{¶5} 
In July 2003, Kralik filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Muskingum County.  Kralik requested a writ of mandamus commanding Judge 
Zwelling to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment on it or to show 
cause why he had not done so.  Kralik also requested a writ of procedendo 
ordering Judge Zwelling to proceed with the hearing and determination of his 
application to reduce the arbitration award to judgment.  In August 2003, the 
court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Kralik’s complaint because he had “an 
adequate remedy at law by way of appeal.” 
{¶6} 
This cause is now before the court for its consideration of Kralik’s 
appeal of right. 
{¶7} 
In his appeal of right, Kralik asserts that the court of appeals erred 
in dismissing his actions for writs of procedendo and mandamus.  For the reasons 
that follow, we hold that Kralik’s claims may have merit and reverse the judgment 
of the court of appeals. 
{¶8} 
“ ‘Sua sponte dismissal without notice is appropriate only if the 
complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts 
alleged in the complaint.’ ”  State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276, 
January Term, 2004 
3 
2002-Ohio-6323, 779 N.E.2d 223, ¶ 11, quoting McAuley v. Smith (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 393, 395, 696 N.E.2d 572. 
{¶9} 
“[P]rocedendo and mandamus will lie when a trial court has 
refused to render, or unduly delayed rendering, a judgment.”  State ex rel. 
Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303, 2003-Ohio-3631, 791 N.E.2d 459, ¶ 5.  
Thus, a writ of procedendo will issue requiring a judge to proceed to final 
judgment if the judge erroneously stayed the proceeding because of a pending 
case that does not affect the court’s jurisdiction to proceed.  State ex. rel. 
Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 180, 184, 652 
N.E.2d 742. 
{¶10} Judge Zwelling erroneously stayed Kralik’s proceeding to reduce 
the arbitration award to judgment based on the reconsideration motion submitted 
by Genesis to the arbitration panel.  “R.C. Chapter 2711 does not confer authority 
on an arbitration panel to reconsider its awards.”  Miller v. Gunckle, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 359, 2002-Ohio-4932, 775 N.E.2d 475, ¶ 23.  Therefore, “ ‘[w]hen the 
submitted issues are decided, the arbitrators’ powers expire.  Thus, a second 
award on a single, circumscribed submission is a nullity.’ ” Id., 96 Ohio St.3d 
359, 2002-Ohio-4932, 775 N.E.2d 475, at ¶ 23, quoting Lockhart v. Am. Res. Ins. 
Co. (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 99, 102, 2 OBR 112, 440 N.E.2d 1210.  In other 
words, “[o]nce an arbitration is completed, a court has no jurisdiction except to 
confirm and enter judgment (R.C. 2711.09 and 2711.12), vacate (R.C. 2711.10 
and 2711.13), modify (R.C. 2711.11 and 2711.13), correct (R.C. 2711.11 and 
2711.13), or enforce the judgment (R.C. 2711.14).”  State ex rel. R.W. Sidley, Inc. 
v. Crawford, 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003-Ohio-5101, 796 N.E.2d 929, ¶ 22.  The 
reconsideration motion by Genesis did not affect Judge Zwelling’s jurisdiction to 
proceed with Kralik’s action to confirm and enter judgment on the arbitration 
award. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶11} Moreover, Kralik does not have an adequate legal remedy for 
Judge Zwelling’s stay.  A preeminent objective of arbitration is to provide the 
parties with a “relatively speedy and inexpensive method of conflict resolution.”  
Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. 
TMR Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 83, 22 OBR 95, 488 N.E.2d 872.  That 
objective is not advanced when a judge stays an arbitration confirmation 
proceeding for invalid reasons that could result in a second arbitration proceeding.  
Cf. State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 533, 705 N.E.2d 
1227, where we held that a writ of procedendo would issue to compel a municipal 
court judge to proceed with a forcible entry and detainer action he had 
erroneously stayed because “[n]o alternate remedy will further the purpose behind 
forcible entry and detainer, which is to provide a summary, extraordinary, and 
speedy method for the recovery of possession of real estate.” 
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals erred in sua sponte 
dismissing Kralik’s complaint.  Kralik’s claims are neither frivolous nor 
obviously without merit.  Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings.  State ex rel. Fogle v. 
Steiner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 656 N.E.2d 1288. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh and Thomas W. Connors, for 
appellant. 
 
Howard S. Zwelling, pro se. 
____________________