State ex rel. L.M. v. Goldberg

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 537

Syllabus

Mandamus, continuance of trial, Sup.R. 41(A), adequate remedy at law, abuse of discretion. We find that relator has failed to establish each prong of the three-part test applicable to a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Initially, relator has failed to establish that she possesses a clear legal right to a continuance of the dates set for trial or that the trial court judge possesses a clear legal duty to grant a continuance. Pursuant to Sup.R. 41(A), the continuance of a scheduled trial or hearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court for good cause shown. To require the trial court judge to grant a continuance at this juncture of legal proceedings would trample on her judicial discretion, and as previously stated, mandamus may not be employed to control judicial discretion, even if the exercise of judicial discretion constitutes gross abuse. Finally, the fact that a postjudgment appeal may be time consuming and expensive to pursue does not render an appeal inadequate so as to justify extraordinary relief through mandamus. It must also be noted that following trial, an appeal may be filed that challenges the failure of the trial court to grant a continuance based upon an abuse-of-discretion argument.