Opinion ID: 5126740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Litigation in State Court

Text: In October 2016, Armatas petitioned for a writ of mandamus, asking the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals to compel enforcement of the Hedge Ordinance against his neighbors because evergreen trees qualified as “hedges.” The Ohio Fifth District dismissed the petition because Armatas “has or had an adequate remedy at law by way of utilizing the township’s appellate process.” Armatas appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, but it dismissed the appeal because Armatas never filed a merits brief. See State ex. rel. Armatas v. Plain Twp. Bd. of Trs., 80 N.E.3d 509 (Ohio 2017) (table). In June 2017, Armatas sued Haws and Ferrara for fraud in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Armatas alleged that Haws and Ferrara purposely provided false information to Armatas by telling him that there were no formal procedures through Plain Township to appeal -2- No. 21-3190, Armatas v. Haws Ferrara’s decision. In September 2017, the trial court dismissed Armatas’s lawsuit because, even assuming that Haws and Ferrara provided false information about the appeals process to Armatas, he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in April 2018.