Opinion ID: 6501018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: These two actions

Text: {¶ 11} In August 2021, Christopher filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in this court (case No. 2021-0997) challenging the general division’s February 2021 order on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over him. We (1) denied the general division’s motion to dismiss, (2) sua sponte dismissed the claims that Christopher asserted individually and as manager of SUMSS, and (3) granted an alternative writ ordering the parties to submit evidence and file briefs in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05, specifying that the parties “shall address only the prohibition claim that [Christopher] assert[ed] in his capacity as coexecutor.” 165 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2021-Ohio-4409, 178 N.E.3d 520. {¶ 12} In November 2021, Craig and Andrea Rene Cowan filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in this court (case No. 2021-1343) challenging the general 4 January Term, 2022 division’s February 2021 order on the same grounds raised by Christopher. We (1) denied the general division’s motion to dismiss, (2) sua sponte dismissed the claims asserted by Craig individually and all the claims asserted by Cowan, and (3) granted an alternative writ ordering the parties to submit evidence and file briefs in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05, specifying that the parties “shall address only the prohibition claim asserted by [Craig] in his capacity as coexecutor.” 165 Ohio St.3d 1530, 2022-Ohio-280, 180 N.E.3d 1152.