State ex rel. Cool v. Clark
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State ex rel. Cool v. Clark, 2014-Ohio-284.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE ex rel. THOMAS COOL, RELATOR, - VS SARAH BROWN CLARK, YOUNGSTOWN MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 13 MA 167 OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Petition for Writ of Mandamus. JUDGMENT: Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed As Moot. APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: Attorney Gary Van Brocklin P.O. Box 3537 Youngstown, Ohio 44513-3537 Attorney Anthony Donofrio Deputy Law Director 26 South Phelps Street Youngstown, Ohio 44503 JUDGES: Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: January 21, 2014 [Cite as State ex rel. Cool v. Clark, 2014-Ohio-284.] PER CURIAM: ¶{1} On October 23, 2013, Relator Thomas Cool filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Respondent Sarah Brown Clark in her capacity as Clerk of the Youngstown Municipal Court. In the writ, Relator, a licensed surety bail bond agent, claims that he attempted to register his agency as a bonding agent for Youngstown Municipal Court but Respondent failed to accept that registration. He claims that Respondent is under a clear legal duty pursuant to R.C. 2905.87 to register Relator as a Surety Bail Bonding Agent and Company and to accept Bail Bonds written by Relator. ¶{2} Respondent filed an answer and affirmative defense on November 20, 2013. She asserted that the registration has been accepted, but at that point Relator had not yet been added to the list of court-registered surety bail bond agents. Respondent indicated that the list would be updated on December 1, 2013 and Relator would be included on that list. Respondent then asked this court to dismiss the writ as moot. ¶{3} On November 29, 2013, we issued an order requiring Respondent to file a copy of the December 1, 2013 list with our court. Relator was informed that within 10 days from the date of the filing of the list he could file a motion with this court presenting arguments as to why the writ should not be deemed moot and dismissed. ¶{4} On December 12, 2013 Respondent complied with our order and filed a copy of the list. Relator has not filed any response to that filing. ¶{5} In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a Relator must establish: (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide such relief, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 663 N.E.2d 639 (1996). ¶{6} We do not need to address whether any of these elements are met. Respondent has already performed; the list filed with this court indicates that Relator s registration has been accepted and that he is on the list of court registered surety bail bond agents. Mandamus will not compel the performance of a duty that has already -2been performed. State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663 (2000). Thus, the petition for writ of mandamus is moot and is hereby dismissed. ¶{7} Final Order. Clerk to serve notice as provided by the Civil Rules. Costs taxed against Relator. Vukovich, J., concurs. Waite, J., concurs. DeGenaro, J., concurs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
