State ex rel. Stacey v. Owens

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed Alix Stacey’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo against Judge Beth Owens. The court held that claims concerning motions filed on December 26, 2025, and January 5, 2026, were moot because the motions had been addressed, and that the December 29, 2025 custody motion had not been pending long enough to constitute undue delay under Sup.R. 40(A)(3). The court also concluded that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied and assessed costs to Stacey.

Holdings

1. A relator seeking mandamus must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the respondent to perform the requested act, and the absence of a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
2. Procedendo is appropriate when a court has refused to render judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment, and the relator must establish a clear legal right to relief and the absence of an adequate remedy at law.
3. A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion may be granted when, after presuming the truth of material allegations and drawing reasonable inferences for the relator, it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief. Extrinsic evidence may be considered to establish that a claim is moot.
4. Mandamus and procedendo claims become moot when the respondent performs the duty the relator requested.
5. A relator is not entitled to mandamus or procedendo to compel a ruling on a motion that has been pending for less than 120 days, absent other circumstances showing an undue delay.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Stacey stated a claim for mandamus or procedendo based on the alleged failure to rule on her emergency motions.
2. Whether the claims concerning the December 26 and January 5 motions were moot because the trial court had addressed those motions.
3. Whether the mootness exception for matters capable of repetition yet evading review applied.
4. Whether Stacey was entitled to mandamus or procedendo concerning the December 29 custody motion when it had been pending for less than 120 days under Sup.R. 40(A)(3).
5. Whether the respondent's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed