Opinion ID: 4676662
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mandamus Claim Against Judge Coletta

Text: {¶ 13} State Farm also seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Coletta to dismiss the Burke case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the case’s return from the common pleas court. While the uncontroverted allegations of State Farm’s complaint support peremptory relief against Judge O’Donnell, they do not support the relief sought against Judge Coletta. {¶ 14} In Natl. Emp. Benefit Servs., in addition to the relief granted against the common pleas court, we ordered that the municipal court dismiss the case under Civ.R. 12(H)(3) for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 51. But in that case, the plaintiff in the municipal-court matter had filed a supplemental complaint to increase the damages sought to an amount beyond the municipal court’s jurisdictional limit. Id. at 49. In contrast, State Farm has not alleged here that Burke filed an amended or supplemental complaint in the municipal court prior to Judge Coletta’s order transferring the case. State Farm’s complaint states only that Judge Coletta granted Burke’s motion to transfer the case to the common pleas court based on her argument that her damages would exceed $15,000. But absent an amended or supplemental complaint in which Burke increased her demand to an amount exceeding $15,000, we cannot say that jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking in the municipal court. Accordingly, we deny the writ of mandamus as to Judge Coletta under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C). {¶ 15} The fact that State Farm has filed a motion for default judgment against Judge Coletta does not alter our analysis. “When appropriate, a default judgment may be entered in a mandamus action.” State ex rel. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Youngstown, 84 Ohio St.3d 51, 53, 701 N.E.2d 986 (1998). But this is not such a case. The analysis whether a default judgment is proper in a mandamus action is essentially the same as an analysis whether a peremptory writ of mandamus is appropriate against a respondent who fails to respond to a complaint. See id. at 53. Because we have determined that the facts 6 January Term, 2021 accepted as true—as a result of Judge Coletta’s failure to respond to the complaint—do not entitle State Farm to a writ of mandamus against him, the motion for default judgment is rendered moot.