State ex rel. Lundeen v. Miday

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed the Lundeens’ mandamus complaint seeking to compel a common pleas judge to vacate an order dismissing their false-light counterclaim. The court held that the judge possessed subject-matter jurisdiction, any alleged error was voidable rather than void, and an appeal provided an adequate remedy. The court also declared the Lundeens vexatious litigators under its local rule and imposed filing restrictions.

Holdings

1. Mandamus was unavailable because the relators failed to establish a clear legal right to vacatur, a clear legal duty requiring Judge Miday to vacate the judgment, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
2. When a specific action falls within a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, an error in exercising that jurisdiction renders the judgment voidable rather than void, and extraordinary relief is unavailable to attack the judgment.
3. The court sua sponte declared the Lundeens vexatious litigators and prohibited them from filing or continuing pro se appeals, original actions, or motions in the Eighth District without first obtaining leave and satisfying filing-fee and security-for-costs requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the relators were entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Miday to vacate the dismissal of their counterclaim.
2. Whether Judge Miday lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on a Civ.R. 12(C) motion because no answer had been filed to the counterclaim.
3. Whether an appeal from the dismissal constituted an adequate remedy that precluded mandamus.
4. Whether the court should declare the relators vexatious litigators and restrict their pro se filings in the Eighth District.

Disposition

dismissed