State ex rel. Ramirez v. Cuyahoga Cty. Domestic Relations Court

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 2601

Syllabus

Mandamus, procedendo, moot. 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 an inferior's refusal or failure to timely dispose of a pending action is the ill a writ of procedendo is designed to remedy. In order to obtain a writ of procedendo, the relator must establish the possession of a clear legal duty to require proceed, that a judicial officer possess a clear legal duty to proceed, and there exists no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. When a court refuses to render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment, procedendo is the appropriate remedy. It must also be noted that procedendo cannot be employed to compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. Herein, rulings have been rendered with regard to outstanding motions and the request for procedendo is moot. In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that setting a matter for hearing renders a complaint for procedendo moot. Finally, neither procedendo nor mandamus may be employed to supervise a judicial officer via a claim of bias or ex parte communications. This court may only direct a respondent to proceed to judgment.