The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals has dismissed Deborah Hoffman’s attempt to use extraordinary legal remedies—writs of prohibition and mandamus—to undo a small claims judgment issued against her by the Akron Municipal Court. The Court found that the Akron Municipal Court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction, meaning Ms. Hoffman’s proper recourse was through a standard appeal, not by seeking intervention from the appellate court.
The case centers on a fee dispute between Ms. Hoffman and an attorney she hired for an expert opinion in a separate civil case in Cuyahoga County. Ms. Hoffman, who resides in Shaker Heights, refused to pay the attorney’s final bill, leading the attorney to file a small claims action in Akron Municipal Court in December 2023 to recoup the unpaid fees.
The Underlying Fee Dispute and Venue Challenge
According to Ms. Hoffman’s complaint, the attorney initially worked out of Munroe Falls, where his invoices during November and December 2020 listed a P.O. Box address. She argued that because she lived in Shaker Heights and the attorney was based in Munroe Falls when the dispute seemingly originated, Akron Municipal Court had no jurisdiction.
When the small claims case was filed in Akron, Ms. Hoffman responded by filing a special appearance and moving to dismiss the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. A magistrate in the Akron court agreed with her on the venue issue, recommending the case be transferred to either Shaker Heights Municipal Court or Stow Municipal Court.
Judicial Recusal and Retired Judge’s Involvement
Following the magistrate’s favorable recommendation, all six sitting judges of the Akron Municipal Court recused themselves. The matter was then assigned to a retired, visiting judge. Ms. Hoffman alleged that this assignment happened without her knowledge.
The attorney subsequently filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Ms. Hoffman claims the retired judge held a hearing on these objections and later conducted a trial on August 2, 2024, all without notifying her. The retired judge ultimately issued a judgment entry in favor of the attorney, overturning the magistrate’s venue ruling and finding that the Akron Municipal Court did have venue.
Ms. Hoffman sought writs from the appellate court to vacate this August 2nd judgment and prevent its enforcement, arguing the Akron court lacked jurisdiction for three key reasons: lack of territorial connection, improper transfer to the retired judge, and lack of proper service regarding the final hearing and trial.
Appellate Court’s Rationale for Dismissal
The Ninth District Court of Appeals, in a Per Curiam opinion, addressed each of Ms. Hoffman’s jurisdictional challenges before ultimately dismissing the case.
First, the Court dismissed the Akron Municipal Court itself as a named respondent, noting that Ohio Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that courts are not “sui juris” (a legal entity capable of suing or being sued) in original actions like mandamus or prohibition.
Regarding the merits of the jurisdiction claim, the appellate court emphasized that for mandamus or prohibition to issue, the respondent court must have “patently and unambiguously” lacked jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is not patently lacking, the proper remedy is an appeal.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Territorial Connection
Ms. Hoffman argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the initial contract work occurred outside Akron. However, the Court pointed to the retired judge’s August 2nd entry, which noted the attorney testified that “all his work was done in Akron, Ohio.”
The appellate court reasoned that under Ohio Civ.R. 3(C)(6), a municipal court may decide an action “in which all or part of the claim for relief arose” within its territorial limits. Since the attorney performed the work for which he was billing in Akron, a sufficient territorial connection existed, granting the municipal court subject matter jurisdiction to hear the initial matter and determine its own authority.
Transfer to Retired Judge and Service Issues
Ms. Hoffman also claimed the transfer to the retired judge violated statutes (R.C. 2701.10 and Rule VI of the Rules for the Government of the Judiciary) requiring her consent. The Court dismissed this, stating these statutes do not explicitly remove jurisdiction from the court. Furthermore, the retired judge was assigned by the Supreme Court, not by action of the parties.
Finally, Ms. Hoffman argued a lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of notice for the final hearing and trial. While she claimed she never received notice until the judgment was entered, the retired judge’s entry noted that a notice sent to her address was “returned, unopened.” The appellate court found this did not meet the high bar required for a “patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction,” which is generally reserved for rare cases involving defendants with no contact with Ohio whatsoever. Since Ms. Hoffman had initially appeared and responded in the small claims case, personal jurisdiction was established.
Adequate Remedy at Law
Because the Court found that the Akron Municipal Court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction, the extraordinary remedies sought were inappropriate. The Court concluded that even if the retired judge made errors in issuing the judgment or handling the notices, Ms. Hoffman had an “adequate remedy at law by appeal.” Mandamus and prohibition cannot be used as substitutes for a standard appeal.
Therefore, the Court concluded it appeared “beyond doubt that Ms. Hoffman can prove no set of facts entitling her to the requested extraordinary relief,” and the case was dismissed, with costs taxed to Ms. Hoffman.