[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Regional Income Tax Agency Bd. of Trustees, 2025-Ohio-4379.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO EX REL., : BRIAN M. AMES, : Relator, : No. 115078 v. : REGIONAL INCOME TAX AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, :
Respondent. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: September 17, 2025
Writ of Mandamus Motion Nos. 585253, 585383, and 585929 Order No. 587824
Appearances:
Brian M. Ames, pro se.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Gregory Brunton, and Eric Bravo, for respondent.
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:
Relator Brian M. Ames (“Ames”) has filed a complaint for mandamus
against respondent, the Regional Income Tax Agency Board of Trustees (“RITA”). Ames seeks a writ of mandamus to compel RITA to provide him with all requested
public records and statutory damages. Because Ames failed to properly make his
public-records request by electronic submission, certified mail, or hand delivery, we
find that Ames is not entitled to any of the requested relief. We also find that all
requested public records have been provided to Ames, which renders his request for
mandamus moot. Finally, Ames is not entitled to statutory damages. We grant
RITA’s motion for summary judgment and deny Ames’s motion for summary
judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
Ames, requested by email, four public records: 1) the rules for
notification of public meetings as required by R.C. 121.22(F) in effect for the years
2023, 2024, and 2025; 2) the signed meeting minutes for the years 2023, 2024, and
2025; 3) the notices of special and rescheduled regular meeting minutes for the
years 2023 and 2024; and 4) the current bylaws. Ames sent the email requests to
Rick J. Carbone, former legal counsel for RITA. See exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4
attached to Ames’s complaint for mandamus. The four emails were sent to Rick
Carbone’s obsolete and unmonitored email address, specifically
rcarbone@ritaohio.com, on February 17, 2025, March 9, 2025, March 10, 2025, and
March 24, 2025.
On April 19, 2025, Ames sent to RITA, by certified mail, a completed
“Ohio Court of Claims Public Records Access Formal Complaint” with copies of the
four prior public-records requests. The certified mail was received by RITA on April 23, 2025. On April 24, 2025, RITA’s chief legal counsel acknowledged receipt
of Ames’s public-records request and further indicated that a response to the request
would be made within seven to ten business days. On April 29, 2025, Ames filed his
complaint for a writ of mandamus. On April 30, 2025, RITA responded to Ames’s
request for public records and provided responses to each of the public-records
requests. On June 11, 2025, RITA filed an answer to the complaint for a writ of
mandamus and a motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2025, Ames filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to RITA’s motion for
summary judgment. On July 7, 2025, RITA filed a brief in opposition to Ames’s
cross-motion for summary judgment.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Failure to Demonstrate Proper Request for Public Records
A writ of mandamus is the remedy to compel compliance with
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act. State ex rel. Castellon v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Prosecutor’s Office, 2025-Ohio-2787; State ex rel. Physicians Commt. For
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903, ¶ 6.
In order to obtain a writ of mandamus pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the party requesting
public records must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the request was
made by certified mail, hand delivery, or electronic submission to the entity or
person responsible for maintaining the public records. State ex rel. Ware v. Akron
Police Dept., 2025-Ohio-1198; State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-3686. A review of Ames’s complaint for mandamus demonstrates that his
original four public-records requests were sent, via email, to RITA’s former chief
legal counsel, Rick Carbone, at rcarbone@ritaohio.com. The affidavit of Amber E.
Greenleaf Duber, the current chief legal counsel for RITA, attached to RITA’s motion
for summary judgment, clearly establishes that Ames did not email his four requests
for public records to the person responsible for public records at RITA. The affidavit
clearly demonstrates that Rick Carbone, the former chief legal counsel for RITA,
retired in 2013 and that the four emails requesting public records were not delivered
to the proper email portal that triggered a required response on the part of RITA to
provide the requested public records. State ex rel. Mobley v. Grabman, 2025-Ohio-
2257; State ex rel. Gabbard, 2025-Ohio-1022, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Mobley v.
Viehweger, 2024-Ohio-4748, ¶ 11. In fact, the official website for RITA provides the
correct email portal through which Ames should have filed his email request for
public records.1 See Regional Income Tax Agency, Contact Us – Media and Public
Records Request Contact, https://www.ritaohio.com/About/Contact/Media
(accessed Sept. 12, 2025) [https://perma.cc/92DC-9CR8]. Thus, based upon the
We take judicial notice of RITA’s website that contains the portal for 1
requesting public records by email. Evid.R. 201 governs judicial notice of adjudicative facts. A court may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute that is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Evid.R. 201(B). States Res. Corp. v. Hendy, 2011-Ohio-1900, ¶ 18; Malone v. Berry, 2007-Ohio- 6501, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). four original emails sent by Ames to a non-employee of RITA, there existed no duty
to provide the requested records under R.C. 149.43.
B. Request for Public Records is Moot
Notwithstanding the initial failure of Ames to properly request public
records from RITA, Ames’s request for public records eventually complied with
R.C. 149.43. On April 23, 2025, RITA received by certified mail an “Ohio Court of
Claims Public Records Access Formal Complaint” with copies of the four prior
public-records requests. On April 24, 2025, the chief legal officer for RITA
acknowledged Ames’s request for public records, via email, and indicated that the
request would be responded to within seven to ten days.
On April 30, 2025, RITA’s chief legal officer responded to the public-
records request and provided, via email, copies of the requested public records and
stated:
Attached please find the records that are responsive to your request, which include:
1. RITA Board of Trustees Bylaws setting forth rules for notification of meetings in effect for 2023, 2024, and 2025;
2. RITA Board meeting minutes for 2023 2024, and 2025;
3. As the RITA Board of Trustees did not hold any special meetings in 2023 and 2024, nor did it reschedule any meetings, no records are responsive to the notices request; and
4. RITA Board of Trustee Bylaws (already provided to satisfy request number 1). In addition, the affidavit of RITA’s chief legal officer, attached to the motion for
summary judgment of RITA, provides that all requested public-records have been
provided or do not exist. The Supreme Court of Ohio has opined that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State ex rel. Ames v. Regional Income Tax Agency Bd. of Trustees, 2025-Ohio-4379.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO EX REL., : BRIAN M. AMES, : Relator, : No. 115078 v. : REGIONAL INCOME TAX AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, :
Respondent. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED DATED: September 17, 2025
Writ of Mandamus Motion Nos. 585253, 585383, and 585929 Order No. 587824
Appearances:
Brian M. Ames, pro se.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Gregory Brunton, and Eric Bravo, for respondent.
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:
Relator Brian M. Ames (“Ames”) has filed a complaint for mandamus
against respondent, the Regional Income Tax Agency Board of Trustees (“RITA”). Ames seeks a writ of mandamus to compel RITA to provide him with all requested
public records and statutory damages. Because Ames failed to properly make his
public-records request by electronic submission, certified mail, or hand delivery, we
find that Ames is not entitled to any of the requested relief. We also find that all
requested public records have been provided to Ames, which renders his request for
mandamus moot. Finally, Ames is not entitled to statutory damages. We grant
RITA’s motion for summary judgment and deny Ames’s motion for summary
judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
Ames, requested by email, four public records: 1) the rules for
notification of public meetings as required by R.C. 121.22(F) in effect for the years
2023, 2024, and 2025; 2) the signed meeting minutes for the years 2023, 2024, and
2025; 3) the notices of special and rescheduled regular meeting minutes for the
years 2023 and 2024; and 4) the current bylaws. Ames sent the email requests to
Rick J. Carbone, former legal counsel for RITA. See exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4
attached to Ames’s complaint for mandamus. The four emails were sent to Rick
Carbone’s obsolete and unmonitored email address, specifically
rcarbone@ritaohio.com, on February 17, 2025, March 9, 2025, March 10, 2025, and
March 24, 2025.
On April 19, 2025, Ames sent to RITA, by certified mail, a completed
“Ohio Court of Claims Public Records Access Formal Complaint” with copies of the
four prior public-records requests. The certified mail was received by RITA on April 23, 2025. On April 24, 2025, RITA’s chief legal counsel acknowledged receipt
of Ames’s public-records request and further indicated that a response to the request
would be made within seven to ten business days. On April 29, 2025, Ames filed his
complaint for a writ of mandamus. On April 30, 2025, RITA responded to Ames’s
request for public records and provided responses to each of the public-records
requests. On June 11, 2025, RITA filed an answer to the complaint for a writ of
mandamus and a motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2025, Ames filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to RITA’s motion for
summary judgment. On July 7, 2025, RITA filed a brief in opposition to Ames’s
cross-motion for summary judgment.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Failure to Demonstrate Proper Request for Public Records
A writ of mandamus is the remedy to compel compliance with
R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act. State ex rel. Castellon v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Prosecutor’s Office, 2025-Ohio-2787; State ex rel. Physicians Commt. For
Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903, ¶ 6.
In order to obtain a writ of mandamus pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the party requesting
public records must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the request was
made by certified mail, hand delivery, or electronic submission to the entity or
person responsible for maintaining the public records. State ex rel. Ware v. Akron
Police Dept., 2025-Ohio-1198; State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-3686. A review of Ames’s complaint for mandamus demonstrates that his
original four public-records requests were sent, via email, to RITA’s former chief
legal counsel, Rick Carbone, at rcarbone@ritaohio.com. The affidavit of Amber E.
Greenleaf Duber, the current chief legal counsel for RITA, attached to RITA’s motion
for summary judgment, clearly establishes that Ames did not email his four requests
for public records to the person responsible for public records at RITA. The affidavit
clearly demonstrates that Rick Carbone, the former chief legal counsel for RITA,
retired in 2013 and that the four emails requesting public records were not delivered
to the proper email portal that triggered a required response on the part of RITA to
provide the requested public records. State ex rel. Mobley v. Grabman, 2025-Ohio-
2257; State ex rel. Gabbard, 2025-Ohio-1022, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Mobley v.
Viehweger, 2024-Ohio-4748, ¶ 11. In fact, the official website for RITA provides the
correct email portal through which Ames should have filed his email request for
public records.1 See Regional Income Tax Agency, Contact Us – Media and Public
Records Request Contact, https://www.ritaohio.com/About/Contact/Media
(accessed Sept. 12, 2025) [https://perma.cc/92DC-9CR8]. Thus, based upon the
We take judicial notice of RITA’s website that contains the portal for 1
requesting public records by email. Evid.R. 201 governs judicial notice of adjudicative facts. A court may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute that is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Evid.R. 201(B). States Res. Corp. v. Hendy, 2011-Ohio-1900, ¶ 18; Malone v. Berry, 2007-Ohio- 6501, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.). four original emails sent by Ames to a non-employee of RITA, there existed no duty
to provide the requested records under R.C. 149.43.
B. Request for Public Records is Moot
Notwithstanding the initial failure of Ames to properly request public
records from RITA, Ames’s request for public records eventually complied with
R.C. 149.43. On April 23, 2025, RITA received by certified mail an “Ohio Court of
Claims Public Records Access Formal Complaint” with copies of the four prior
public-records requests. On April 24, 2025, the chief legal officer for RITA
acknowledged Ames’s request for public records, via email, and indicated that the
request would be responded to within seven to ten days.
On April 30, 2025, RITA’s chief legal officer responded to the public-
records request and provided, via email, copies of the requested public records and
stated:
Attached please find the records that are responsive to your request, which include:
1. RITA Board of Trustees Bylaws setting forth rules for notification of meetings in effect for 2023, 2024, and 2025;
2. RITA Board meeting minutes for 2023 2024, and 2025;
3. As the RITA Board of Trustees did not hold any special meetings in 2023 and 2024, nor did it reschedule any meetings, no records are responsive to the notices request; and
4. RITA Board of Trustee Bylaws (already provided to satisfy request number 1). In addition, the affidavit of RITA’s chief legal officer, attached to the motion for
summary judgment of RITA, provides that all requested public-records have been
provided or do not exist. The Supreme Court of Ohio has opined that
“‘[i]n general, providing the requested records to the relator in a public-records mandamus case renders the mandamus claim moot.’” State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose, 175 Ohio St. 3d 278, 2024-Ohio-1909, ¶ 7, 242 N.E.3d 5, quoting State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo- Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St. 3d 537, 2009-Ohio-1767, ¶ 14, 905 N.E.2d 1221. Additionally, “[a]bsent contrary evidence in the record,” averments that all responsive records have been provided establish [*13] that the mandamus claim is moot. State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 156 Ohio St. 3d 22, 2018-Ohio-5110, ¶ 18, 123 N.E.3d 895; see also State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 176 Ohio St. 3d 352, 2024-Ohio-2694, ¶ 12, 247 N.E.3d 344.
State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2025-Ohio-1027, ¶ 30. See also
State ex rel. Mobley v. Viehweger, 2024-Ohio-4748, ¶ 9; State ex rel. Ware v.
Galonski, 2024-Ohio-613, ¶ 9; State ex rel. Frank v. Clermont Cty. Prosecutor,
2021-Ohio-623, ¶ 15. Ames’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot, because all
public records have been provided.
C. Statutory Damages – R.C. 149.43(C)(2)
Ames also seeks statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Ames
may obtain statutory damages if this court determines that RITA failed to comply
with its obligation to provide the requested public records under R.C. 149.43. To be
entitled to statutory damages, Ames must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that he sent his public-records requests to RITA by certified mail, hand delivery, or
electronic submission and that RITA failed to produce the records within a
reasonable time. State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 2020-Ohio-3686, ¶ 13-14. Statutory damages accrue at $100 for each business day that the public office failed
to comply with R.C. 149.43(B), starting with the day the mandamus action was filed,
up to a maximum of $1,000. R.C. 149.43(C)(2).
There is no dispute that RITA provided all requested public records
within a reasonable period of time. RITA provided all properly requested public
records within seven days of Ames properly making his proper request for public
records, by certified mail, on April 23, 2025. Specifically, a proper request for public
records was made on April 23, 2025, via certified mail sent to RITA, and RITA
provided all requested public records on April 30, 2025, via email. Thus, Ames is
not entitled to statutory damages since the requested public records were provided
within a reasonable period of time. State ex rel. Ames v. Big Walnut Local School
Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-2493, ¶ 14; State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of
Trustees, 2024-Ohio-3062, ¶ 41; State ex rel. Grim v. New Holland, 2024-Ohio-
4822, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Mobley v. La Rose, 2024-Ohio-1909, ¶ 11; State ex rel. Ellis
v. Maple Hts. Police Dept., 2019-Ohio-367, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).
Accordingly, we grant RITA’s motion for summary judgment and
deny Ames’s motion for summary judgment. Costs to Ames. The court directs the
clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry
upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). Writ denied.
________________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR