Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of mandamus sought by James Luonuansuu and Patrick Layshock to compel placement of referendum petitions concerning four Newton Falls ordinances on the November 2020 ballot. The court held that the relators failed to present clear and convincing evidence establishing their entitlement to extraordinary relief. The court also denied as moot a motion to strike the relators’ second reply brief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether relators established a clear legal right and corresponding clear legal duty sufficient to warrant a writ of mandamus compelling placement of four referendum petitions on the November 2020 ballot.
- Whether the relators' evidentiary submissions established their claims by clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether the respondents' motion to strike relators' second reply brief should be granted.
Holdings
- A relator seeking a writ of mandamus must prove by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the respondent, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
- Relators were not entitled to mandamus relief because they failed to establish their right to relief by clear and convincing evidence.
- The motion to strike was denied as moot because the court's denial of mandamus relief made the briefing violations inconsequential.
Key quotations
“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.” (¶ 15)
“The briefs and memoranda of the parties are not evidence.” (¶ 17)
Factual background
Newton Falls enacted four ordinances concerning an automated-meter project, an extension of the law director's employment contract, and municipal-building financing. Relators submitted referendum petitions concerning the ordinances and sought to compel election officials to place them on the November 2020 ballot. The record did not adequately establish the status or disposition of several petitions, and the affidavit supporting the complaint was not based solely on personal knowledge.
Procedural history
Relators filed a mandamus complaint in the Supreme Court of Ohio on August 5, 2020. The respondents answered and filed merit briefs; relators filed separate reply briefs, and Kathleen King moved to strike the second reply brief. The court denied the writ because relators failed to establish their entitlement to relief by clear and convincing evidence and denied the motion to strike as moot.