Opinion

Y-City News v. Tri-Valley Local School Bd. of Edn.

  • 2022 Ohio 2665
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
May 17, 2022
Status
Published
On the bench
Clark
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 1.2%

The opinion

[Cite as Y-City News v. Tri-Valley Local School Bd. of Edn., 2022-Ohio-2665.]

Y-CITY NEWS Case No. 2022-00113PQ

Requester Special Master Jeff Clark

v. RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

TRI-VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL

BOARD OF EDUCATION

Respondent

{¶1} The Ohio Public Records Act requires copies of public records to be made

available to any person upon request. R.C. 149.43(B)(1). This action is filed under R.C.

2743.75, which is intended “to provide for an expeditious and economical procedure” to

enforce the Act in the Court of Claims. R.C. 2743.75(A). This procedure has been utilized

by hundreds of individuals, including many who make requests and file complaints in their

own names rather than on behalf of any corporate entity.

{¶2} On November 22, 2021, requester Y-City News made public records requests

to Tri-Valley Local School District Superintendent Mark Neal for certain text and email

records from July or August, 2019. (Complaint at 3.) The request was expressly made by

a corporate entity. (Complaint at 3 – “our organization is requesting an opportunity to

inspect or obtain copies of the following public records.”) Y-City News summarizes the

requests as

seeking communications between Superintendent Mark Neal and a current

common pleas court judge as well as the former elected county prosecutor,

who retired from office and now serves as an assistant prosecutor for the

same office. * * *

This particular records request seeks the emails and corresponding

attachments from Superintendent Neal to the aforementioned judge and

prosecutor as well as a series of text messages of school resource officer

Brad Gearhart.

Case No. 2022-00113PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Id. at 2.) Respondent Tri-Valley Local School District Board of Education (Tri-Valley SD)

responded to each request (Id. at 5-12), but on February 15, 2022, Y-City News filed a

complaint under R.C. 2743.75, naming the media corporation as the party-requester,

alleging denial of access to additional public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(1).

Following unsuccessful mediation, Tri-Valley SD filed a motion to dismiss (Response) on

April 20, 2022.

{¶3} Tri-Valley SD seeks dismissal, inter alia, on the ground that this action was

commenced on behalf of a corporation by a person not admitted to the Ohio bar.

(Response at 5.) The court directed Y-City News to brief the issue. (April 18, 2022 Order.)

In response, Y-City News filed a letter on May 10, 2022 that lacked a caption or proof of

service on Tri-Valley SD. The court may not consider any document filed with the court

“until proof of service is endorsed thereon or separately filed.” Civ.R. 5(B)(4). However,

in the interest of justice the Special Master reviewed the letter and finds that it does not

address the issue of representation other than to state that Y-City News has no “corporate

attorney on staff” and that the person who filed the complaint is not an attorney. Y-City

News appears to believe that the special statutory court action in the Ohio Court of Claims

is informal and not subject to the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure and Ohio Revised Code.

Complaint Improperly Filed on Behalf of Corporation by Non-Attorney

{¶4} Either an individual or a corporation may make a public records request

because “any person” may make the request, R.C. 149.43(B)(1), and both individuals and

corporations are included in the definition of a “person.” R.C. 1.59(C). However, unlike an

individual person, “A corporation cannot maintain litigation in propria persona, or appear

in court through an officer of the corporation or an appointed agent not admitted to the

practice of law.” Union Savings Assn. v. Home Owners Aid, 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 60, 262

N.E.2d 558 (1970). The Y-City News contact person could have made the request in his

own name and filed an enforcement action in his own name as the party-requester pro

se (without an attorney). Instead, Y-City News brought this action as a corporation, and

Case No. 2022-00113PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

the complaint was signed by a corporate officer rather than an attorney. (Complaint at 1-

2; Response at 5, Exhs. B and C.)

{¶5} R.C. 4705.01 provides, in pertinent part:

No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at

law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which

the person is not a party concerned, either by using or subscribing the

person’s own name, or the name of another person, unless the person has

been admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with

its prescribed and published rules. * * *

“When a non-attorney files a complaint in a court in violation of R.C. 4705.01, the court

should dismiss the complaint without prejudice.” Williams v. Global Constr. Co. Ltd., 26

Ohio App.3d 119, 26 Ohio B. 330, 498 N.E.2d 500 (10th Dist.1985), paragraph two of the

syllabus. See generally Cannabis for Cures, L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Pharm., 2nd Dist. Clark

No. 2018-CA-12, 2018-Ohio-3193, passim, and cases cited therein.

{¶6} The special master concludes that Y-City News’ filing of the complaint was a

nullity and this action should be dismissed. Because the dismissal is other than on the

merits, the dismissal should be without prejudice.

Other Defenses Asserted

{¶7} The above ground for dismissal disposes of this case in its entirety, and there

is thus no need to address any other defense raised in Tri-Valley SD’s response.

Conclusion

{¶8} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) the Special Master recommends the court

dismiss this action and that dismissal be without prejudice to refiling by an individual

requester representing themself pro se, or by Y-City News through an attorney. It is

recommended that costs be assessed to the requester.

{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection with

the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after receiving this

report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with particularity all

grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption

Case No. 2022-00113PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and recommendation unless a

timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1).

JEFF CLARK

Special Master

Filed May 17, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 8/4/22

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.