State ex rel. Dabernig v. Earley
This text of 2025 Ohio 3288 (State ex rel. Dabernig v. Earley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State ex rel. Dabernig v. Earley, 2025-Ohio-3288.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : JAMI DABERNIG, : Relator, : No. 115319 v.
JUDGE MICHELLE D. EARLEY, :
Respondent. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED DATED: September 5, 2025
Writ of Procedendo and Mandamus Motion No. 587435 Order No. 587472
Appearances:
Michela Huth, for relator.
Mark D. Griffin, Director of Law, City of Cleveland, and Gilbert Blomgren and J.R. Russell, Assistant Directors of Law, for respondent.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
Jami Dabernig, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of
procedendo and mandamus. Dabernig seeks an order from this court that compels Judge Michelle D. Earley, the respondent, to comply with App.R. 9(C)(1) and settle
a proposed statement of proceedings or evidence filed in Cleveland v. Dabernig,
Cleveland M.C. No. 2023-CRB-006494. Judge Earley has filed a motion to dismiss
that is granted.
Attached to the motion to dismiss is a copy of a judgment entry,
journalized August 22, 2025, which demonstrates that Judge Earley has addressed
Dabernig’s proposed App.R. 9(C) statement and issued a judgment with regard to
the proposed App.R. 9(C) statement. Judge Earley has performed her duty under
App.R. 9(C) to act on the statement of evidence by refusing to settle or approve it
based upon the fact that no trial was scheduled or had on January 21, 2025. State
ex rel. Johnson v. Hunter, 64 Ohio St.3d 243 (1992); Aurora v. Bellinger, 2008-
Ohio-6772 (11th Dist.). See also State ex rel. Hull v. Gaughan, 39 Ohio St.3d 145
(1988); State ex rel. Fant v. Trumbo, 22 Ohio St.3d 207 (1986).
Relief is unwarranted because the request for a writ of procedendo
and mandamus is moot. Procedendo or mandamus will not compel the
performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Ames v.
Pokorny, 2021-Ohio-2070; Thompson v. Donnelly, 2018-Ohio-4073; State ex rel.
S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2020-Ohio-5189 (8th Dist.). See also State ex rel. Williams v. Croce,
2018-Ohio-2703; State ex rel. Fontanella v. Kontos, 2008-Ohio-1431.
Accordingly, we grant Judge Earley’s motion to dismiss. Costs
waived. 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). Complaint dismissed.
______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LISA B. FORBES, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 3288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dabernig-v-earley-ohioctapp-2025.