[Cite as State ex rel. Boyd v. Ambrose, 2011-Ohio-6485.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97670
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
PATTY BOYD, INDIV. & ADMIN., ETC.
RELATOR
vs.
JUDGE DICK AMBROSE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
COMPLAINT DISMISSED
Writ of Prohibition
Order No. 450247
RELEASED DATE: December 12, 2011
FOR RELATOR
William J. Novak
Novak, Robenalt & Pavlik, LLP
1660 W. 2nd Street Ste 950
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Justice Center, 9th Fl.
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MARY EILEEN KILBANE:
{¶ 1} Patty Boyd, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Emmett F.
Boyd, seeks a writ of prohibition in order to declare as void, the judgments, as rendered
by Judge Dick Ambrose in Boyd v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al, Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-660101, with regard to the enforcement of a
settlement agreement. Specifically, Boyd seeks prohibition in order to declare as void
(1) the order of Nov. 30, 2010, that granted a motion to enforce settlement; and (2) the
order of Nov. 14, 2011, that denied a Civ.R.60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For
the following reasons, we sua sponte dismiss the complaint for a writ of prohibition.
{¶ 2} A writ of prohibition constitutes a legal order that is intended to enjoin a
court of inferior jurisdiction from acting beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. State ex
rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 1998-Ohio-275, 701 N.E.2d 1002. In order
for this court to issue a writ of prohibition, Boyd must establish that (1) Judge Ambrose is
about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is not
authorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other
adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Sliwinski v.
Burnham Unruh, 118 Ohio St.3d 76, 2008-Ohio-1734, 886 N.E.2d 201; State ex rel.
Lipinski v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 19, 1995-Ohio-96, 655
N.E.2d 1303. An adequate remedy at law will preclude relief in prohibition. State ex
rel. Lesher v. Kainrad (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 68, 417 N.E.2d 1382; State ex rel. Sibarco
Corp. v. City of Berea (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 85, 218 N.E.2d 428 . Furthermore, absent a
patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter
jurisdiction over an action possesses the legal authority to determine its own jurisdiction,
and a party challenging its jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy at law by way of a
post-judgment appeal. Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 74 Ohio
St.3d 120, 1995-Ohio-302, 656 N.E.2d 688.
{¶ 3} It is abundantly clear that Judge Ambrose possesses original general
jurisdiction over all civil cases, including a wrongful-death action. R.C. 2305.01;
Seventh Urban, Inc. V. University Circle Property Dev., Inc. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 19,
423 N.E.2d 1070; State ex rel. Mastracci v. Rose (1947), 79 Ohio App. 556, 72 N.E.2d
582. In addition, Boyd possesses an adequate remedy at law through a direct appeal of
the judgment that denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Cf. Stacy et
al., v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 658, 709 N.E.2d 519; Ohio
Fosnight v. Esquivel (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 372, 666 N.E.2d 273; Withers v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (Nov. 26, 2004), Seventh App. District No. 04-MA-39.
{¶ 4} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss Boyd's complaint for a writ of
prohibition. Costs to Boyd. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District
Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by
Civ.R.58(B).
Complaint dismissed.
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, PRESIDING JUDGE
MARY J. BOYLE, J., and
LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR