Opinion ID: 4562502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The merits of the mandamus claims

Text: {¶ 15} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. The relator in a mandamus action bears the burden of proof, which is heightened due to the extraordinary nature of the relief sought. State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446, 2011-Ohio-6117, 958 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 56. {¶ 16} Yet in this case, relators have failed to present evidence to establish even the most basic facts of their claims. Their evidence consists of a defective affidavit,2 copies of the four relevant ordinances, a copy of an Ohio Senate bill,3 a March 2016 document labeled “Drafting Resolutions and Ordinances, 2016 Local Government Officials Conference,” purportedly from a seminar sponsored by the “Auditor of the State,” excerpts from the Newton Falls city charter, and a letter from King to the board of elections, dated December 22, 2009, that related to an 11-year-old referendum petition. These documents are not sufficient to entitle relators to relief with respect to any of the four petitions. {¶ 17} The chronology in Luonuansuu’s affidavit stops on July 30 with the presentation of the final petition to King, without discussing the disposition of the 2. Relators submitted an affidavit from Luonuansuu based on his “belief and personal knowledge” that the facts contained therein were “true and correct to the best of his knowledge.” (Emphasis added.) But affidavits in support of an original-action complaint must be “made on personal knowledge” of the affiant, S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(2), and an affidavit made “to the best of [the affiant’s] knowledge, information, and belief” is insufficient. State ex rel. Walker v. Husted, 144 Ohio St.3d 361, 2015-Ohio-3749, 43 N.E.3d 419, ¶ 25; see also State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 50, 2017-Ohio-8115, 85 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 11 (an affidavit made “to the best of” the affiant’s personal knowledge or information does not satisfy the requirement). 3. According to relators, the bill purports to demonstrate the “Correct Format for Repealing [a] Clause” of the Ohio Revised Code. 6 January Term, 2020 petitions. Relators allege in their complaint that on August 4, the board of elections rejected the petitions for referenda on the first meter ordinance and the law-director ordinance, but the board’s answer expressly denies these allegations. The record therefore contains no evidence to establish that the board rejected these petitions or, if so, the reason(s) for those rejections. As for any factual statements contained in the parties’ merit briefs, “ ‘[t]he briefs and memoranda of the parties are not evidence.’ ” Smith v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 27988 and 27991, 2017-Ohio360, ¶ 10, quoting Bank One, Columbus, N.A. v. O’Brien, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 91AP-166 and 91AP-441, 1991 WL 281429,  (Dec. 31, 1991). {¶ 18} With respect to the bond ordinance, relators alleged in their complaint that the board verified the signatures on August 4 but that King had not certified the petition to the board for placement on the ballot. But relators filed their suit only one day after the board verified the signatures. According to her affidavit, King transmitted the petitions to the board on August 17.4 Here again, there is no evidence in the record to show what the board did with the petition, or that the board has even taken any action at all on the petition. {¶ 19} Only with respect to the second meter ordinance is there evidence of the petition’s current status. As noted above, King states in her affidavit that she rejected that petition herself, on August 17, based on her assessment that the second meter ordinance was an emergency measure and therefore not subject to referendum. But that evidence did not come from relators, so once again, they have failed to meet their evidentiary burden. More problematic, though, is the fact that because this occurred after the complaint was filed, any challenge to King’s decision falls outside the scope of the pleadings. In fact, even in their merit briefs, relators continue to insist that they are entitled to the same relief they sought in their 4. “In extraordinary-writ cases, courts are not limited to the facts at the time a proceeding is commenced, but should consider facts at the time it determines whether to grant the writ.” State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 115 Ohio St.3d 195, 2007-Ohio-4798, 874 N.E.2d 516, ¶ 11. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO complaint—a writ of mandamus compelling placement of the referendum on the ballot—even though that is not the relief to which they would be entitled if they prevailed in a challenge to King’s decision. {¶ 20} In sum, relators have failed to present evidence establishing their right to relief by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the request for a writ of mandamus is denied.