Opinion

State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose

  • 171 Ohio St. 3d 107
  • 215 N.E.3d 547
  • 2023 Ohio 1165
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 11, 2023
Status
Published
On the bench
Per Curiam
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 23.1%

The opinion

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State

ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-

1165.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-1165

THE STATE EX REL. SUMMIT COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE v. LAROSE, SECY. OF STATE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt.

v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1165.]

Attorney fees—Relator failed to show that secretary of state acted in bad faith in

rejecting its recommendation to make reappointment to county board of

elections—Relator’s motion for attorney fees denied.

(No. 2021-0327—Submitted February 7, 2023—Decided April 11, 2023.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In 2021, we granted a writ of mandamus compelling respondent,

Secretary of State Frank LaRose, to reappoint Bryan C. Williams to the Summit

County Board of Elections. State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive

Commt. v. LaRose, 165 Ohio St.3d 185, 2021-Ohio-1464, 177 N.E.3d 218. More

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

than a year after we granted the writ, relator, the Summit County Republican Party

Executive Committee, filed a motion for an award of more than $69,000 in attorney

fees that it allegedly incurred in this case. We deny the motion.

{¶ 2} Attorney fees may be awarded in a mandamus case when the party

against whom the fees would be taxed acted in bad faith. See State ex rel. Kabatek

v. Stackhouse, 6 Ohio St.3d 55, 451 N.E.2d 248 (1983). To recover attorney fees

based on bad faith, a party “must show more than negligence or bad judgment” on

the part of the opposing party. State ex rel. Grumbles v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of

Elections, 165 Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-3132, 180 N.E.3d 1099, ¶ 20. “Bad

faith” connotes a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, conscious wrongdoing, or

some ulterior motive or ill will. State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 161 Ohio St.3d

130, 2020-Ohio-3686, 161 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 26.

{¶ 3} The committee suggests that our decision granting a writ of

mandamus establishes that Secretary LaRose acted in bad faith in rejecting the

committee’s recommendation to reappoint Williams. But in granting the writ, we

held only that Secretary LaRose abused his discretion in rejecting the committee’s

recommendation. See Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. at ¶ 9, 28,

37, 46, 56, 60, 67, 70. Our prior holding does not, in itself, support the committee’s

request for an award of attorney fees.

{¶ 4} The committee’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. The

committee points to the fact that Secretary LaRose included individualized

allegations in his explanations for rejecting other recommended appointees and that

only with respect to Williams did Secretary LaRose profess a desire for a “cultural

change” without identifying specific wrongdoing. And the committee asserts that

Secretary LaRose acted with “[p]olitical [h]ostility” because he “perceive[d]

Williams as a political opponent.” The evidence before us does not prove that

Secretary LaRose rejected Williams’s appointment out of personal animus or that

2

January Term, 2023

Secretary LaRose’s allegedly insufficient explanation for rejecting the committee’s

recommendation reflects bad faith.

{¶ 5} The committee also asserts that Secretary LaRose’s decision “caused

severe and long-lasting consequences” to the committee. But the alleged severity

of any consequences does not support the argument that Secretary LaRose acted in

bad faith. Moreover, to the extent that Secretary LaRose’s rejection of the

committee’s recommendation caused reputational harm, that harm was suffered by

Williams, not by the committee.

{¶ 6} Because the committee has not shown that Secretary LaRose acted in

bad faith in rejecting its recommendation to reappoint Williams, we deny its motion

for attorney fees.

Motion denied.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,

and DETERS, JJ., concur.

_________________

Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Stephen W. Funk, and Emily K. Anglewicz;

and Cassone Law Office, L.L.C., and Joshua J. Brown, for relator.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Julie M. Pfeiffer, Michael A. Walton,

and Caitlyn N. Johnson, Assistant Attorneys General; Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C.,

David A. Lockshaw Jr., and Terrence O’Donnell, for respondent.

_________________

3

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.