State ex rel. East Manufacturing Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

586 N.E.2d 105, 63 Ohio St. 3d 179, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 266, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 992
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 11, 1992
DocketNo. 90-2099
StatusPublished
Cited by54 cases

This text of 586 N.E.2d 105 (State ex rel. East Manufacturing Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. East Manufacturing Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, 586 N.E.2d 105, 63 Ohio St. 3d 179, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 266, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 992 (Ohio 1992).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We hold that the court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint and in failing to deny the writ pursuant to the commission’s motion for summary judgment. We now exercise our plenary authority in extraordinary actions and deny the writ as if it had been originally filed in this court. State, ex rel. Natalina Food Co., v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 98, 562 N.E.2d 1383.

East Manufacturing first maintains that alleging in the complaint, or establishing on the merits, a lack of an adequate remedy is unnecessary if the commission patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction.

As to this argument, we have held that we may grant a writ of prohibition if a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, despite a relator’s having an adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. Natalina Food Co., v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., supra. According to Natalina, however, if the commission has “ * * * ‘basic statutory jurisdiction to proceed in the case,’ ” we will not grant the writ. Id. at 100, 562 N.E.2d at 1385. Under Natalina, the commission here has at least this basic jurisdiction.

The commission,- in this case, did not expressly acknowledge failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement that the commission must attempt conciliation before it may issue a complaint, as it had in the case upon which East Manufacturing relies, State, ex rel. Republic Steel Corp., v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 178, 73 O.O.2d 478, 339 N.E.2d 658. To the contrary, the commission, according to the evidence, appears to have complied with this conciliation prerequisite. The commission did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction. This jurisdictional question, moreover, can be raised on appeal under R.C. 4112.06, and, thus, East Manufacturing has an adequate remedy at law. State, ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. [181]*181Co., v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 426, 6 OBR 471, 453 N.E.2d 601.

East Manufacturing also claims that the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying its motions to vacate judgment and for leave to amend the complaint.1 The above analysis also undermines this argument. For East Manufacturing to prevail on the motion to vacate, it must, inter alia, demonstrate that it has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief from judgment were to be granted. GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 1 O.O.3d 86, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph two of the syllabus. Here, East Manufacturing does not have a meritorious claim because its proposed amendment, in adding the allegation that it lacks an adequate remedy, is an incorrect statement per the above reasoning.

Furthermore, filing a Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion “ * * * does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.” Civ.R. 60(B). Thus, after the court’s dismissal, East Manufacturing had to decide whether to appeal the dismissal or to allow the judgment to become final and stand on its motion for relief from judgment. It chose to appeal, which divested the court of appeals of jurisdiction. Klinginsmith v. Felix (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 147, 574 N.E.2d 1142. Consequently, the court should not have responded to the motions to vacate the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint.

Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the court of appeals, grant the commission’s motion for summary judgment, and deny the writ.

Judgment modified and writ denied.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Mason v. Basinger
2026 Ohio 638 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2026)
VMI Group, Inc. v. Capstone Constr. Co., L.L.C.
2023 Ohio 3882 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon
2022 Ohio 1718 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
In re G.C.
2021 Ohio 2442 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State ex rel. Third Family Health Servs. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.
2021 Ohio 1179 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
CitiMortgage v. Nyamusevya
2021 Ohio 219 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
Whipps v. Ryan
2014 Ohio 5302 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Quality Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Pertuset
2014 Ohio 1291 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Am. Savs. Bank v. Pertuset
2014 Ohio 1290 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Farm Credit Servs. of Mid-Am. v. Pertuset
2014 Ohio 1289 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Crump v. Batie
2013 Ohio 2345 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State v. Lauharn
2012 Ohio 1572 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2012)
Transky v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission
951 N.E.2d 1106 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
State Ex Rel. Lisboa v. Galvin, 92525 (3-4-2009)
2009 Ohio 969 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
State v. Black, C-070546 (8-1-2008)
2008 Ohio 3790 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
State Ex Rel. Jakim v. Ambrose, Unpublished Decision (1-9-2008)
2008 Ohio 45 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Beauty Max L.L.C. v. Wbuy Tv, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2007)
2007 Ohio 4831 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Rosen v. Celebrezze
875 N.E.2d 659 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Trw Automotive v. Corrigan, 89706 (4-18-2007)
2007 Ohio 1832 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
State Ex Rel. Petro v. Marshall, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2006)
2006 Ohio 5357 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
586 N.E.2d 105, 63 Ohio St. 3d 179, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 266, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-east-manufacturing-corp-v-ohio-civil-rights-commission-ohio-1992.