State ex rel. Bertalan v. Hawkins

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 116284
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Bertalan v. Hawkins, 2026-Ohio-2548.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : GEORGE A. BERTALAN, : Relator, : No. 116284 v. : THE HONORABLE PAMELA A. HAWKINS, :

Respondent. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: WRITS DENIED DATED: June 26, 2026

Writs of Procedendo and Mandamus Motion No. 595826 Order No. 596419

Appearances:

George A. Bertalan, pro se.

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. Stewart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J.:

Relator George A. Bertalan seeks writs of procedendo and mandamus

ordering respondent Judge Pamela A. Hawkins, as successor to Judge Debra L. Boros, “to perform a clear legal duty: to rule on multiple properly-filed emergency

motions concerning the parent-child relationship and the welfare of minor

children.”1 For the reasons that follow, relator’s request for relief is moot,

respondent’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the request for writs of

procedendo and mandamus is denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Collectively, the materials attached to the pleadings and dispositive

motion set forth the following facts and procedural history. On December 28, 2023,

relator and his former spouse were divorced pursuant to a decree entered by the

Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court in Case No. DR-21-384906. The

divorce decree incorporated an agreed parenting plan that set forth the parental

rights and responsibilities for the couple’s minor children. On April 24, 2025, this

court affirmed the final divorce decree. Bertalan v. Bertalan, 2025-Ohio-1443 (8th

Dist.) (“Bertalan I” or “Appeal No. 113619”).

On August 8, 2025, relator filed a motion to vacate the divorce decree

pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). The motion was denied on September 3, 2025, and relator

filed a timely appeal with this court in Appeal No. 115533. On May 14, 2026, this

court affirmed that trial court’s denial of relator’s motion to vacate, finding “no

abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Bertalan v. Bertalan, 2026-Ohio-1173, ¶ 9

(8th Dist.) (“Bertalan II” or “Appeal No. 115533”).

1 Pursuant to Civ.R. 25(D)(1), Judge Pamela A. Hawkins is substituted for Judge

Debra L. Boros who was previously assigned to the underlying case. During the pendency of his appeal in Appeal No. 115533, relator filed

a series of motions with the domestic relations court relating to certain aspects of

the divorce decree, including the couple’s marital property and parenting rights.

These motions included the following: (1) August 29, 2025 – emergency motion for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; (2) September 12, 2025 –

emergency motion to modify parenting plan; (3) September 18, 2025 –

supplemental motion to modify parenting plan; (4) September 24, 2025 – motion

to compel ruling; (5) September 24, 2025 – motion for enforcement of parenting

plan and for sanction; (6) November 5, 2025 – renewed emergency motion to

compel; (7) November 29, 2025 – emergency motion to compel plaintiff to comply

with parenting plan; (8) January 5, 2026 – motion for reassignment and immediate

judicial review; (9) February 4, 2026 – emergency motion for temporary relief; (10)

February 27, 2026 — emergency motion to compel immediate ruling and restore

parenting time.

On November 6, 2025, the trial court issued a judgment entry, finding

it was without jurisdiction, pending the appeal in Appeal No. 115533, to resolve the

motions filed by the relator on August 29, September 12, September 18, September

24, and November 5, 2025. Subsequently, the trial court issued a similar entry

regarding the pending motions filed by the relator on November 29, 2025, and

January 5, February 4, and February 27, 2026. Accordingly, all motions were held

in abeyance pending the resolution of relator’s appeal. On March 24, 2026, relator filed the instant petition for writs of

procedendo and mandamus, asking this court to compel the trial court to

“immediately” rule on his pending motions, or in the alternative, direct “the trial

court to exercise its jurisdiction over emergency parenting matters.” Relator alleges

that the respondent judge “incorrectly” concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to

resolve the motions pending appeal. Specifically, relator asserts that the trial court

retained jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court’s

jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment from which an appeal was

taken in Appeal No. 115533.

On April 27, 2026, the respondent judge moved to dismiss the

original action, arguing the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could

be granted. Preliminarily, respondent argued that relator’s petition was moot

because the trial court complied with its legal duty to proceed to judgment by issuing

orders holding the pending motions in abeyance. Alternatively, respondent asserted

that the trial court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the

pending motions because they directly related to the final divorce decree, which was

the subject of the motion to vacate appealed in Appeal No. 115533.

On May 18, 2026, this court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss

because it relied on extrinsic evidence that was not publicly available. On May 22,

2026, respondent filed an answer that attached copies of relevant materials from

Appeal Nos. 113619 and 115533 and a certified copy of the docket in Case No. DR-

21-384906. Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C). In the motion, respondent noted that during the pendency

of this original action, this court resolved relator’s appeal in Bertalan II and affirmed

the trial court’s judgment on May 14, 2026. The following day, the domestic

relations court issued a judgment entry that scheduled hearings to occur on July 13,

2026, and July 14, 2026. The entry specifies that the hearings are set to resolve each

of the pending motions identified in relator’s petition for writs of procedendo and

mandamus. Respondent argues that by setting a hearing to resolve the pending

motions, relator’s request for writs of procedendo and mandamus is moot.

Relator did not file an opposition to respondent’s motion for

summary judgment.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Standard of Review

Original actions in mandamus and procedendo ordinarily “proceed as

any civil action under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.” Loc.App.R. 45(D)(2)(c).

This case is before this court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper when the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,

transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, show that (1) there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law, and (3) the evidence submitted can only lead reasonable minds to a conclusion that is adverse to the nonmoving party. See Harless v. Willis Day

Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 (1978).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of

informing the court of the basis for the motion and demonstrating the absence of

genuine issues of material fact. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293 (1996).

If the moving party does not satisfy this burden, summary judgment is not

appropriate. If the moving party meets the burden, the nonmoving party has a

reciprocal burden to point to evidence of specific facts in the record that

demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 293.

Where the nonmoving party fails to meet this burden, summary judgment is

appropriate. Id.

Relevant to this action, it is well settled that “[c]opies of public records

properly certified as correct by the custodian under Evid.R. 902(4) are admissible

as evidence in support of a summary judgment motion.” Ritchey v. JP Morgan

Chase Bank, 2017-Ohio-8529, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.), citing Cent. Ohio Neurological

Surgeons, Inc. v. Rose, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4095, *3 (10th Dist. Sept. 11, 1997);

Hubbard v. Defiance, 2013-Ohio-2144, ¶ 36 (3d Dist.).

B. Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo

The writ of mandamus and the writ of procedendo generally serve a

similar purpose and the Ohio Supreme Court has treated them both as available

remedies. “Although mandamus will lie in cases of a court’s undue delay in entering

judgment, procedendo is more appropriate, since ‘[a]n inferior’s refusal or failure to timely dispose of a pending action is the ill a writ of procedendo is designed to

remedy.’” State ex rel. Dehler v. Sutula, 74 Ohio St.3d 33, 35 (1995), quoting State

ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104, 110 (1994). Accordingly, we shall

treat the complaint as a request for a writ of procedendo. See State ex rel. Ramirez

v. Cuyahoga Cty. Domestic Relations Court, 2025-Ohio-2601, ¶ 2 (8th Dist.).

“‘A writ of procedendo is an extraordinary remedy in the form of an

order from a higher tribunal directing a lower tribunal to proceed to judgment.’”

State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 2021-Ohio-1121, ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel.

Mignella v. Indus. Commn. of Ohio, 2019-Ohio-463, ¶ 7. “‘A writ of procedendo is

proper when a court has refused to enter judgment or has unnecessarily delayed

proceeding to judgment.’” State ex rel. Dodson v. Phipps, 2024-Ohio-4928, ¶ 13,

quoting State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 2013-Ohio-1762, ¶ 7. Such a writ does not

instruct the lower court as to what the judgment should be; it merely instructs the

lower court to issue a judgment. Bechtel at ¶ 7, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v.

Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462 (1995). A writ of

procedendo is appropriate upon a showing of a clear legal right to require the

respondent to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to proceed,

and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Dodson at

¶ 13; Bechtel at ¶ 7.

It is well settled that “[n]either a writ of procedendo nor mandamus

will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex

rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2024-Ohio-1387, ¶ 15, citing State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 2021-Ohio-1121, ¶ 9 (procedendo); State ex rel. Davidson v. Beathard, 2021-Ohio-

3125, ¶ 13 (mandamus). Thus, “procedendo and mandamus claims become moot

when a respondent performs the duty requested to be performed.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing

State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, 2021-Ohio-4097, ¶ 5 (procedendo); State ex rel.

Cox v. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm., 2021-Ohio-2799, ¶ 22 (mandamus). When

resolving issues of mootness, this court may consider facts that arise after a

complaint is filed: “In extraordinary-writ cases, courts are not limited to the facts at

the time a proceeding is commenced, but should consider facts at the time it

determines whether to grant the writ.” State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 2007-

Ohio-4798, ¶ 11.

As stated, relator seeks rulings with regard to motions that

purportedly have not been ruled upon by the respondent as the result of undue

delay. Regarding the respondent’s applicable duty, the Ohio Supreme Court has

clarified that setting a matter for hearing renders an action for a writ of procedendo

moot. State ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel, 2016-Ohio-7827, ¶ 11; see also State ex rel.

S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2018-Ohio-2743, ¶ 11, 13 (8th Dist.); State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd,

2020-Ohio-5189, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.) (applying Rohrer to a request for mandamus).

In this case, the evidence establishes that immediately following this

court’s judgment in Bertalan II, the domestic relations court issued a judgment

entry setting a hearing to resolve the relator’s outstanding motions in Case No.

DR-21-384906. The record therefore confirms that the respondent judge is acting

on the pending motions and that relator has received the relief sought in his petition. Accordingly, we find this original action is moot based on the court’s May 15, 2026

entry. Relator has not opposed the respondent’s evidence or otherwise disputed the

application of the mootness doctrine.

Based on the foregoing, we grant respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and deny relator’s request for writs of procedendo and mandamus. Costs

assessed against relator; costs waived. The clerk is directed to serve on all parties

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

Writs denied.

________________________ MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, A.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR