Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept.

1996 Ohio 205, 75 Ohio St. 3d 508

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: May 29, 1996
• Docket: 1995-2002
• Status: Published

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 508.]

LITIGAIDE, INC. v. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR LAKEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT. [Cite as Litigaide, Inc. v. Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Dept., 1996-Ohio-205.] Mandamus to compel Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department to provide requested police report and to enjoin the custodian from requiring persons requesting public records to provide personal information prior to being afforded access to the records—Cause dismissed, when. (No. 95-2002—Submitted April 15, 1996—Decided May 29, 1996.) IN MANDAMUS. __________________ {¶ 1} Relator, Litigaide, Inc. (“Litigaide”), provides litigation support services to attorneys and other clients. In August 1995, Litigaide’s sole employee, Randall G. Buckosh, requested a copy of a police report from respondent, Custodian of Records for Lakewood Police Department. After respondent refused Litigaide’s request, Litigaide instituted this action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to provide the requested police report and to enjoin respondent from requiring persons requesting public records to provide personal information prior to being afforded access to records. __________________ Debra J. Dixon, for relator. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Albert J. Lucas and Stanley J. Dobrowski; and Michael E. Murman, Lakewood Director of Law, for respondent. __________________

Per Curiam. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} Litigaide’s action is subject to dismissal for the following reasons. Litigaide failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because its complaint was not brought in the name of the state on relation of Litigaide. Respondent raised this objection in its answer and brief on the merits, but Litigaide failed to seek leave to amend its complaint to comply with R.C. 2731.04. Therefore, Litigaide’s mandamus action must be dismissed. See State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 532-533, 653 N.E.2d 349, 352-353; Civ.R. 17(A); Maloney v. Sacks (1962), 173 Ohio St. 237, 238, 19 O.O.2d 51, 52, 181 N.E.2d 268, 269. {¶ 3} In addition, to the extent that Litigaide requests injunctive relief, its claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 640 N.E.2d 1136, 1137-1138. {¶ 4} Accordingly, the cause is dismissed, and Litigaide’s request for attorney fees is denied. Cause dismissed. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________