Denial, Not Dismissal: Moot Public-Records Mandamus Petitions Must Be Denied — State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees

Denial, Not Dismissal: Moot Public-Records Mandamus Petitions Must Be Denied — State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees

Introduction

In State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Township Board of Trustees, 2025-Ohio-1027, the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed a precise procedural rule in Ohio mandamus practice: when a mandamus claim becomes moot because the public office provides all responsive records, the proper disposition is to deny the writ as moot, not to dismiss the petition. The Court also rejected a suite of procedural challenges to a court of appeals’ decision to convert a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss into a Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment in a public-records mandamus case under R.C. 149.43.

The case arose from a public-records request for meeting-notice rules, staff-meeting minutes, and a records-retention schedule, submitted under a pseudonym to the Concord Township Board of Trustees. The Township promptly produced records but initially omitted one month of staff-meeting minutes, which it supplied shortly after service of a mandamus petition. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals found the petition moot, granted summary judgment to the Board, denied default judgment, and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Supreme Court modified the judgment to deny the writ as moot, leaving undisturbed the mootness determination. The appellant, Brian Ames, pursued only the writ disposition and procedural points; he did not appeal the denial of statutory damages and fees.

Summary of the Opinion

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Eleventh District correctly concluded the mandamus action was moot once the Board provided all responsive records (¶ 31–33, 35).
  • However, the Court modified the judgment to reflect the proper disposition: the writ must be denied as moot, rather than the petition dismissed (¶ 33, 35), citing State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 2023-Ohio-2668, ¶ 19.
  • The Court rejected Ames’s arguments that the court of appeals improperly converted a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to a summary-judgment motion; Civ.R. 12(B) expressly authorizes conversion when matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded, with reasonable notice to the parties (¶ 22–25).
  • The Board’s affidavit establishing that all responsive records were produced sufficed to moot the writ claim absent contrary evidence; Ames offered none (¶ 31).
  • Questions about whether the minutes were “official” or complied with the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) were not at issue in this public-records case; the only issue was whether responsive records were provided (¶ 31).
  • Issues concerning statutory damages and attorney fees were not before the Court because Ames did not appeal them (¶ 34).

Case Background

Parties

  • Appellant: Brian M. Ames (pro se), a frequent public-records litigant.
  • Appellee: Concord Township Board of Trustees.

Key Facts and Timeline

  • May 6, 2024: A public-records request is emailed to the Township’s fiscal officer under the pseudonym “Lavrentiy Beria,” seeking (1) the Township’s meeting-notice rules under R.C. 121.22(F) for 2023–2024, (2) staff-meeting minutes for 2023–2024, and (3) the current records retention schedule (RC-2) (¶ 3).
  • May 7: The Township administrator replies within roughly 24 hours with 15 attachments, indicating the annual meeting schedule in organizational meeting minutes satisfies R.C. 121.22(F) (¶ 4). Later that day, the requester notes missing “minutes for first part of 2023”; within 24 hours the administrator sends “all staff meeting minutes from 2023” as 11 attachments (¶ 5).
  • May 10: Ames files a mandamus petition in the Eleventh District, alleging incomplete production and seeking the writ, statutory damages, costs, and fees (¶ 6).
  • May 13–14: After service of the petition, the Township discovers the April 2023 staff-meeting minutes were inadvertently omitted and emails them to Ames on May 14 (¶ 7–8).
  • May 15: The Board passes a resolution approving staff-meeting minutes and ratifying staff-meeting actions since January 1, 2019 (¶ 8).
  • June–August: The court of appeals converts the Board’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to a summary-judgment motion; the Board argues mootness and against damages/fees; Ames moves for default and summary judgment and challenges the form and status of the minutes; the Eleventh District grants summary judgment to the Board, finds mootness, and dismisses the petition (¶ 12–19).
  • Appeal as of right: Ames limits his appeal to the dismissal vs. denial issue and procedural objections; he does not pursue statutory damages or attorney fees (¶ 1, 19–21, 34).

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • Civ.R. 12(B): Authorizes conversion of a motion to dismiss to a summary-judgment motion where matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded, with a reasonable opportunity for parties to present pertinent materials (¶ 22).
  • State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 1998-Ohio-329, ¶ 17: Recognizes the validity of converting a 12(B)(6) motion to summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are considered (¶ 23).
  • State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 1996-Ohio-211, ¶ 8 (lead opinion): Filing a dismissal motion—later converted to summary judgment—tolls the time to file an answer until the summary-judgment motion is resolved (¶ 24).
  • R.C. 149.43 (Ohio Public Records Act): Provides the right to obtain copies of public records within a reasonable period; authorizes mandamus to enforce compliance and to obtain costs, fees, and statutory damages (¶ 27–29).
  • Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 24–25: Clarifies the public office’s clear duty to make identifiable public records available, and that adequate legal remedy is not required for mandamus under R.C. 149.43 (¶ 28–29).
  • State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, ¶ 10: Articulates the mandamus standard in public-records cases (¶ 29).
  • State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose, 2024-Ohio-1909, ¶ 7; State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 2009-Ohio-1767, ¶ 14: Production of requested records generally moots the mandamus claim (¶ 30).
  • State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 2018-Ohio-5110, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst., 2024-Ohio-2694, ¶ 12: Absent contrary evidence, a sworn averment that all responsive records have been provided renders the claim moot (¶ 30).
  • Smith v. McBride, 2011-Ohio-4674, ¶ 12; State ex rel. Parker v. Russo, 2019-Ohio-4420, ¶ 5: Summary-judgment standard and de novo review (¶ 26).
  • State ex rel. Data Trace Information Servs., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2012-Ohio-753, ¶ 25: Adequate remedy is not a prerequisite in public-records mandamus (¶ 29).
  • State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 2023-Ohio-2668, ¶ 19: Upon finding mootness in a mandamus action, the correct disposition is denial of the writ (¶ 33, 35).

Legal Reasoning

1) Conversion under Civ.R. 12(B) was proper; no answer was required

Ames advanced multiple procedural propositions: that the court needed a “predefined procedure” to convert the Board’s 12(B)(6) motion; that an answer was required before summary judgment; and that conversion implicitly denied the motion to dismiss and therefore deemed the complaint’s allegations admitted. The Court rejected these contentions.

  • Express authorization: Civ.R. 12(B) permits conversion to summary judgment when materials outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded, provided the court affords a reasonable opportunity for the parties to present Rule 56 materials. The Eleventh District did exactly that (¶ 22–23).
  • Tolling of the answer deadline: Under Zimmerman v. Tompkins, a motion to dismiss that is converted to summary judgment tolls the time to answer until the summary-judgment motion is decided; thus, the Board’s failure to file an answer did not result in admissions or default (¶ 24).
  • Compliance with Rule 56: There was no indication that the court of appeals deviated from Civ.R. 56 after conversion. Therefore, the procedural challenges lacked merit (¶ 25).

2) Mootness: Production of all responsive records extinguishes the writ

The Court reiterated a settled rule in public-records mandamus: “providing the requested records to the relator … renders the mandamus claim moot” (¶ 30, citing Mobley and Toledo Blade). The evidentiary mechanism is equally straightforward: a sworn averment that all responsive records have been produced is sufficient to moot the claim “absent contrary evidence in the record” (¶ 30, citing Kesterson and Scott).

Here, the Board submitted evidence that all responsive records—including the inadvertently omitted April 2023 staff-meeting minutes—had been provided to Ames (¶ 7–8, 31). Ames did not counter with evidence that anything remained outstanding (¶ 31). His core objection was to the form and “official” status of the minutes produced, but the Court explained that such Open Meetings Act compliance questions (R.C. 121.22) are not at issue in a public-records case; the only cognizable issue is whether the public office produced the records requested (¶ 31). Having failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to non-production, Ames’s writ claim was moot, and summary judgment for the Board was proper (¶ 31).

3) Correct disposition: deny the writ as moot, do not dismiss

Although the Eleventh District correctly found mootness, it dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court—citing its own recent precedent in State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar—again underscored the proper form of judgment: “upon finding that a writ claim is moot, the correct disposition is to deny the writ” (¶ 33, 35). The Court therefore modified the appellate judgment to reflect a denial of the writ as moot (¶ 33, 35).

4) Non-issues on appeal: statutory damages, fees, and “follow-up email” observation

  • Statutory damages and fees: Ames did not appeal the Eleventh District’s denial of statutory damages and attorney fees (¶ 1, 19, 34). Those issues were therefore outside the Supreme Court’s review.
  • Follow-up email commentary: The Eleventh District’s observation that Ames could have sent a follow-up email before filing suit was not an articulated rule of law and thus provided no basis for relief (¶ 32).

Impact and Practical Implications

For public offices responding to records requests

  • Prompt supplemental production moots the writ: Even if an initial response inadvertently omits documents, a later complete production—including post-filing but pre-judgment—will generally moot a mandamus claim for production (¶ 30–31).
  • Affidavits matter: A sworn statement that “all responsive records have been provided” is powerful and can be dispositive if the requester does not rebut it with evidence (¶ 30–31).
  • Procedure shield: Moving under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and providing matters outside the pleadings allows conversion to summary judgment; the motion tolls the answer deadline, avoiding default traps (¶ 22–25).

For requesters and litigators

  • Focus on production, not content disputes: In public-records mandamus, the justiciable issue is whether the office produced the requested records, not whether those records are adequate under other statutes (e.g., whether minutes comply with R.C. 121.22). Separate claims and evidence would be needed to litigate Open Meetings Act compliance (¶ 31).
  • Evidence is essential to defeat mootness: To resist summary judgment on mootness, requesters must marshal evidence that responsive records remain outstanding. Mere argument about the quality or format of what was produced will not suffice (¶ 31).
  • Relief form matters: If the claim becomes moot, the expected terminal judgment is “writ denied as moot,” not dismissal. While largely technical, the correct form aids clarity and consistency across mandamus jurisprudence (¶ 33, 35).
  • Damages and fees can persist conceptually: Although not addressed here because not appealed, Ohio law permits statutory damages and attorney fees in certain circumstances even after production. Requesters should brief and preserve those issues distinctly where appropriate under R.C. 149.43(C)(1)–(2).

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Mandamus: A special civil action seeking a court order compelling a public office or official to perform a clear legal duty. In the public-records context, mandamus enforces the duty to produce public records under R.C. 149.43(B).
  • Mootness (in public-records cases): If the public office produces all responsive records, there is no live controversy for the court to resolve regarding production; the claim for a writ compelling production becomes moot.
  • Civ.R. 12(B) conversion: When a motion to dismiss (asserting failure to state a claim) relies on evidence outside the complaint—and the court considers that evidence—the motion becomes a summary-judgment motion under Civ.R. 56. The parties must be given notice and an opportunity to present responsive evidence.
  • Tolling of answer deadline: Filing a motion to dismiss that is converted to a summary-judgment motion delays the deadline to file an answer until after the summary-judgment motion is decided, preventing default.
  • “Official” minutes vs. public records: Whether meeting minutes technically comply with statutory requirements (Open Meetings Act) is a different legal question from whether the records exist and are produced upon request. In a public-records mandamus action, the question is production, not compliance with substantive meeting laws, unless the request itself seeks specific “official” versions and they exist.
  • Writ denied vs. petition dismissed: In Ohio mandamus practice, when the court reaches the merits insofar as it can and finds the claim moot, the remedy is to deny the writ as moot. “Dismissal” is typically used for jurisdictional or procedural defects; “denial” signifies that the court has resolved the request for extraordinary relief (albeit on mootness grounds).

How This Decision Fits Within—and Slightly Refines—Existing Law

Substantively, the opinion is conservative: it applies longstanding rules that post-request production moots a mandamus claim and that a sworn averment of complete production shifts the burden to the requester to show otherwise. It also confirms, consistently with prior cases, that public-records mandamus is not a vehicle to litigate Open Meetings Act compliance or to demand the creation of new records—a theme frequently encountered in public-records jurisprudence.

Procedurally, the Court reinforces a well-known but sometimes overlooked point: courts are to deny writs as moot rather than dismiss petitions when production occurs. The Court’s express modification of the appellate judgment promotes uniformity and doctrinal clarity, echoing its statement in State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar (2023) (¶ 33). The reiteration may reduce inconsistent dispositions among appellate districts and facilitate cleaner application of preclusion and appellate-review doctrines in extraordinary-writ cases.

Key Takeaways

  • Public-records mandamus claims are mooted by complete production; to defeat mootness, the requester must present evidence that responsive records remain outstanding.
  • A sworn statement by the public office that all responsive records have been produced will generally carry the day absent contrary proof.
  • Challenges to the adequacy or “official” status of produced minutes are not part of a public-records mandamus inquiry; those are Open Meetings Act issues.
  • Courts may convert a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion into summary judgment under Civ.R. 12(B), and the answer deadline is tolled during that process.
  • When mootness is found in a mandamus action, the proper judgment entry is denial of the writ as moot, not dismissal of the petition.
  • Requesters who seek statutory damages or attorney fees under R.C. 149.43(C) must separately preserve and pursue those claims; they are not automatically foreclosed by post-filing production, though this opinion did not address them.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Ames v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Trustees consolidates several practical rules that shape public-records litigation in Ohio. First, it affirms that production of records—supported by sworn proof—moors the action in mootness, shifting the burden to the requester to demonstrate remaining deficiencies with evidence, not mere argument. Second, and most pointedly, it reiterates that the correct disposition for a mooted mandamus claim is to deny the writ as moot, not to dismiss the petition. The Court’s reinforcement of Civ.R. 12(B) conversion practices and its careful cabin of Open Meetings Act questions to their proper forum further streamline litigation in this area. Together, these clarifications promote efficiency, doctrinal consistency, and fidelity to the distinct purposes of Ohio’s Public Records Act and Open Meetings Act.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Comments