Court Opinion

ID: 9392198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 15:08:45.102017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.126944
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Meros v. Atty. Gen., 2023-Ohio-1490.]

                              IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

    THOMAS L. MEROS                                    Case No. 2023-00146PQ

          Requester                                    Special Master Todd Marti

          v.                                           RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

    OFFICE OF OHIO ATTORNEY
    GENERAL DAVE YOST

          Respondent

          {¶1} This matter is before the Special Master upon a R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) review of
the complaint. Based on that review, the Special Master recommends that this case be
dismissed without prejudice.
     I.        Background.
     Requester/Relator Thomas Meros (“Meros”) was formerly an attorney who practiced
in Cuyahoga County. He alleges that various Cuyahoga County judges, lawyers, and
federal officials engaged in a long running criminal conspiracy against him and others.
He further alleges that he reported that conspiracy to the Organized Crime Investigation
Commission, part of the Ohio Attorney General’s office, and that individuals within the
Attorney General’s office joined in the conspiracy in various ways.                       See generally,
Miscellaneous Filing, made February 27, 2023 (“Complaint/Petition”).1
          {¶2} The Complaint/Petition alleges several legal claims based on those facts. The
most prominent are alleged violations of the criminal laws. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 38, 73, 104, 105,
107, 127, 128, 139, 140, 155, , 201.

1  Although the Court’s docket references a complaint filed February 23, 2023, a review of that filing, along
with the February 27 Complaint/Petition and the correspondence covering those submissions, reveals the
February 23 filing was not the pleading intended to initiate this case. Instead, the February 27
Complaint/Petition was intended to be the pleading that set forth Meros’ allegations and the February 23
filing contains the exhibits referenced in the Complaint/Petition.
Case No. 2023-00146PQ                               -2-         RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

          {¶3} Meros also alleges violations of R.C. 149.43 in connection with his public
records requests to the Attorney General’s office. He asserts that he requested records
connected to its investigation of the conspiracy and records related to actions to collect a
tax dept he allegedly owes. He asserts, among other things, that more responsive
records exist than the Attorney General’s office produced and seeks to conduct discovery
on that question. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 91, 210, 236, 272, 325.
          {¶4} Those claims are asserted in a pleading that purports to be both a complaint
filed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 and a petition for mandamus. Id. at pp. 3, 4, 5, 13 ¶ 1, 14
¶ 2.2
          {¶5} The Special Master disclosed his prior affiliation with the Attorney General’s
office and instructed the parties to object to his involvement in the case if they perceived
a problem. Order, entered March 16, 2023. No party objected within the specified time.
    II.      Analysis.
             A. Dismissal.
          {¶6} When a complaint is filed under R.C. 2743.75, “the clerk of the court of claims
shall assign *** a special master to examine the complaint.” R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). That
statute further provides that “upon the recommendation of the special master, the court
of claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time.” A case is properly
dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if asserts claims beyond the Court’s jurisdiction
or if it will require discovery for its efficient resolution, something not available in cases
brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Clerk, Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-
00547PQ, 2019-Ohio-2630, ¶¶ 2, 8-9 (lack of jurisdiction); Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab.
& Corr., Ct. of Cl. No. 2022-00114PQ, 2022-Ohio-1619, ¶¶ 2, 6 (discovery); Advance
Local Media, LLC v. Ohio State Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00596PQ, 2022-Ohio-321
(same). The Special Master finds that both of those grounds are present here.
          {¶7} This Court lacks jurisdiction over all, or at least large portions of, Meros’
claims. That is true in two respects.

2 All references to specific pages of matters filed in this case are to pages of the PDF copies posted on
the Court’s docket, rather than to any internal pagination of the filings.
Case No. 2023-00146PQ                        -3-       RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

       {¶8} First, Meros is seeking relief in mandamus, relief this Court lacks jurisdiction
to grant. R.C. 2731.02 does not include the Court of Claims in the list of courts authorized
to grant mandamus relief and the cases have repeatedly held that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over mandamus claims. Dancy v. Molitoris, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-749,
2010-Ohio-1382, ¶ 5 (collecting cases). Although Meros utilized this Court’s form to file
a “complaint” under R.C. 2743.75, he did so to merely to cover what is undeniably a
petition for a writ of mandamus. It is brought in in the name of the state on the relation of
Meros, and is verified by affidavit as required by R.C. 2731.04. It is expressly captioned
as a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” Complaint/Petition at pp. 2-5. All relief
sought via that petition, the entirety of the relief sought here, is therefore beyond this
Court’s jurisdiction.
       {¶9} Second, much of the Complaint/Petition asserts that the Individual
Respondents violated the criminal law. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 38, 73, 104, 105, 107, 127, 128,
139, 140, 155, 156, 201. Those claims are beyond this Court’s jurisdiction because “the
Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a crime has
occurred[.]” Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-
743, 2020-Ohio-3191, ¶ 16 (quoting Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Correction, 10th
Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-713, 2019-Ohio-3788, ¶ 12).
       {¶10} The fact intensive nature of Meros’ claims combines with this Court’s limited
fact-finding capabilities to warrant dismissal. R.C. 2743.75 was intended to provide a
process for addressing public records disputes that can be resolved “efficient[ly]” without
discovery. Grant, 2022-Ohio-1619, ¶ 4, n. 1; R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(a). This Court has
therefore dismissed cases that cannot be efficiently adjudicated because they involve
factual disputes that cannot be resolved without discovery and are unlikely to be resolved
through mediation. Requestors pressing such claims are instead left to pursue them
through mandamus proceedings in courts where discovery is permitted. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6;
Advance Local Media, 2022-Ohio-321, ¶ 2.
       {¶11} This is such a case. Meros’ primary public records contention is that more
records exist than Respondents have produced, an inherently factual question.            He
therefore seeks to conduct discovery on that question, something that R.C.
Case No. 2023-00146PQ                        -4-        RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

2643.75(E)(3)(a) prohibits. That, along with the unavailability of evidentiary hearings,
leaves the Court with no efficient way to resolve that fact question. See Grant, 2022-
Ohio-1619, ¶ 4; Advance Local Media, 2022-Ohio-321; Welsh-Huggins v. Office of the
Prosecuting Atty., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-00793PQ, 2019-Ohio-964, ¶ 11 (no evidentiary
hearings in R.C. 2743.75 cases). And given Meros’ vehemence, it is unlikely that his
claims will be resolved through mediation. In short, the Court will likely be faced with
factual questions it has no efficient way to resolve.        The Special Master therefore
recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice, leaving Meros’ free to pursue
his claims in courts with greater fact-finding capability.
             B. Costs.
        {¶12} Costs should be assessed against Meros pursuant to R.C. 2743.09(F), and
R.C. 2303.20 because he implicitly agreed to pay those costs by filing this case. Helfrich
v. Hall, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2021 CA 00077, 2022-Ohio-1852, ¶ 25.
      III.       Conclusion.
    In light of the foregoing the Special Master recommends that:
             A. The Court dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to R.C.
                 2743.75(D)(2); and
             B. Costs be assessed against Meros.
        {¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with
the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this
report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all
grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption
of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a
timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

                                            TODD MARTI
                                            Special Master

Filed April 4, 2023
Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/23