State ex rel. Zoldan v. Giulitto

2026 Ohio 787

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 2025-P-0083
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Zoldan v. Giulitto, 2026-Ohio-787.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2025-P-0083 RON J. ZOLDAN,

Relator, Original Action for Writ of Procedendo

- vs -

THE HONORABLE PAULA C. GIULITTO,

Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: March 9, 2026 Judgment: Dismissed

Jorge Luis Pla and Erika Molnar, Raslanpla & Company, L.L.C., 1701 East 12th Street, Suite 3GW, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Relator).

Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Christopher J. Meduri, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Pending before this court is relator, Ron J. Zoldan’s, verified complaint for

an original action in procedendo. Respondent, Judge Paula Giulitto, has filed a motion to

dismiss. For the following reasons, we grant Judge Giulitto’s motion and dismiss Zoldan’s

complaint.

{¶2} Zoldan filed his complaint on December 9, 2025. Therein, he requests that

this court order Judge Giulitto to issue judgments ruling on his July 16, 2025 motion to reconsider and July 25, 2025 motion for a new trial, in a case pending before her, Zoldan

v. Zoldan, Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case

No. 2020 DR 00416. He contends that a ruling on these motions is required given the

passage of time since they were filed.

{¶3} As grounds for dismissal, Judge Giulitto argues that she ruled upon the two

motions on January 7, 2026, rendering the present action moot. Attached to her motion

to dismiss is a copy of the judgment entry denying the motions. Zoldan has not responded

to this motion.

{¶4} “A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to

render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed in proceeding to judgment.” State ex

rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 532 (1999). “An action in procedendo becomes

moot when the court performs the duty requested.” State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway,

2021-Ohio-4097, ¶ 5; State ex rel. Clay v. Gee, 2014-Ohio-48, ¶ 5 (“procedendo will not

issue to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed”).

{¶5} In the present case, Judge Giulitto asserts that she has performed the

action requested by ruling on the motions for reconsideration and a new trial. This is

supported by an attached judgment entry and by reference to the court’s docket. State

v. Hines, 2019-Ohio-1298, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio

St.3d 252, 253 (1998) (“the court of appeals properly took judicial notice of docket entries

to determine that a procedendo action should be dismissed as moot”). Further, while the

copy of the entry attached by Giulitto is not certified, Zoldan has not disputed the entry of

this judgment or the allegation of mootness raised in the motion to dismiss. State ex rel.

Davies v. Schroeder, 2014-Ohio-973, ¶ 6-8 (11th Dist.) (“although the submission of

PAGE 2 OF 4

Case No. 2025-P-0083 certified copies may be the best method for establishing the existence of such a judgment,

we have also indicated that a finding of mootness can be made in an original action when

the relator does not contest the respondent’s contention” that a judgment on the pending

matter has been rendered) (citation omitted). Since a judgment has been issued ruling

upon Zoldan’s motions, procedendo does not lie to compel further action and this matter

is moot. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 2024-Ohio-3246, ¶ 3 (11th Dist.).

{¶6} Accordingly, Judge Giulitto’s motion to dismiss is granted and the verified

complaint for an original action in procedendo is dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur.

PAGE 3 OF 4

Case No. 2025-P-0083 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, respondent’s motion

to dismiss is granted and relator’s verified complaint for an original action in procedendo

is dismissed. Costs to be taxed against relator.

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs

JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 4 OF 4

Case No. 2025-P-0083