[Cite as Diebert v. Village of N. Baltimore Adm., 2026-Ohio-2335.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
CHERYL D. DIEBERT, et al. Requesters
v.
VILLAGE OF NORTH BALTIMORE
ADMINISTRATION
Respondent Case No. 2025-00766PQ Special Master Sarah Pierce
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
{¶1} This matter is before me for a report and recommendation. R.C.2743.75(F). I recommend that the court (1) grant respondent's motion to dismiss, (2) dismiss this case pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), and (3) order the parties to split the costs of this case.
I. Background {¶2} On August 22, 2025, Requesters Cheryl Diebert and Cara Diebert jointly filed this public-records action against Respondent Village of North Baltimore Administration. Original Complaint, filed Aug. 22, 2025. On the same date, the Requesters filed a similar public-records case in this court against the North Baltimore Police Department. Cheryl D. Diebert, et al. v. North Baltimore Police Department, Case No. 2025-0765PQ (Ct. of Cl.).
{¶3} The first special master assigned to this case ordered the Requesters to file an amended complaint. Order, entered Aug. 27, 2025. The special master noted that
"examination [of the complaint] was frustrated by requester's [sic] failure to provide a description of how access to public records was denied in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), to give the date of each request, and to be specific as to what records have not been provided as required by R.C. 2743.75(D)(1) and the form complaint created by the clerk of this court." Id. The special master ordered an amended complaint to correct each of these deficiencies. Id.
1
{¶4} On September 12, 2025, the Requesters filed an amended complaint in compliance with that order. First Am. Complaint, filed Sept. 12, 2025. The amended complaint utilized the correct complaint form. It also attached pages listing the dates of 18 public records requests sent to the Village from two different email addresses. The amended complaint did not attach copies of the original public records requests or written responses from the public office. Id.
{¶5} On September 25, 2025, the special master referred the Requesters' two cases to mediation as related cases. Notice, entered Sept. 25, 2025. Over the next five months, the parties participated in mediation activities facilitated by court staff, including two formal mediation conferences. While the cases were in mediation, I replaced the original special master as the special master assigned to both cases. Notice, entered Nov. 12, 2025. On March 5, 2026, mediation was terminated and the two cases were returned to me for a report and recommendation. Order, entered Mar. 2, 2026; Order, entered Mar. 5, 2026.
{¶6} On March 17, 2026, I held a status conference with the parties to discuss the current needs of the case. Notice, entered Mar. 10, 2026. Both parties attended the status conference and represented that 1) some of the original claims were resolved in mediation, and 2) a longer case schedule was needed for evidence presentation and briefing. Entry, entered Mar. 18, 2026.
{¶7} I therefore issued an order setting a revised case schedule. Order, entered Mar. 18, 2026. As part of that schedule, I directed the Requesters to file a second amended complaint in the case. I ordered that the second amended complaint "should contain a detailed statement of each public records claim to be resolved by the court." Id. The second amended complaint was ordered to be filed by April 2, 2026. Id.
{¶8} On April 3, 2026, the Requesters filed two separate documents. Reqs. Misc. Filings, filed Apr. 3, 2026. Neither document contains a certificate of service. The documents are identical. Both documents are 16 pages in length. The first page bears a handwritten label that reads "2025-00766PQ". The rest of the first page is a typed "Table of Contents." The following five pages contain a typed list similar to the pages attached to the first amended complaint. The remaining pages are pieces from other documents,
2
including a few emails, the Ohio Attorney General's Sunshine Laws Manual, and the Ohio Historical Society's manual on suggested municipal records retention. Id.
{¶9} On April 8, 2026, the Requesters filed an additional document. Reqs. Misc. Filing, filed Apr. 8, 2026. The first page states "Please [accept] this download for Cara's case 2025-00766PQ. I mistakenly sent the wrong packet." Id. The first page is signed by both Requesters. The second page lists a typed "Table of Contents." Pages three through eight contain another typed list similar to the pages attached to the first amended complaint. Pages nine through 65 attach email correspondence. Id.
{¶10} On April 21, 2026, the Village filed a motion to dismiss the case.1Resp. Motion to Dismiss, filed Apr. 21, 2026. Essentially, the Village argues for dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) because the second amended complaint does not comply with the court's March 18, 2026, case scheduling order or pleading standards. In the alternative, the Village requested a 40-day extension of the deadlines set by the March 18, 2026, case schedule. Id.
II. Analysis A. Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted and this case dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2).
{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2), "upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time." In addition, pursuant to R.C. 2743.45(E)(2), the respondent in a public-records action may file "if applicable, a motion to dismiss the complaint[.]" Here, the Village has filed a motion to dismiss this case, asking the court to exercise its authority under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). The Village argues that Requesters have failed to comply with the March 18, 2026, order requiring the Requesters to file a second amended complaint.
{¶12} I agree that this case should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). First, Requesters have not complied with the order to file a second amended complaint. See Order, entered Mar. 18, 2026. Based on the parties' representations following mediation, I ordered a second amended complaint to eliminate claims that had been
3
resolved in mediation and any duplicate claims between the Requesters' two related cases. Id. That filing was required to "be filed and served according to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules" and was due on or before April 2, 2026. Id.
{¶13} Requesters did not submit a filing by that deadline. Requesters did not file a motion for leave to file after that deadline. R.C. 2743.75 requires a complaining requester to "file a complaint, on a form prescribed by the clerk of the court of claims[.]" R.C. 2743.75(D)(1); see also Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-2185, ¶ 59-61, adopted 2024-Ohio-2625 (Ct. of Cl.). To date, Requesters have not filed an additional document that utilizes the court's public-records complaint form. Requesters also have not filed an additional document styled as an amended complaint. See L.C.C.R. 4. Assuming the two documents filed by Requesters on April 3 and April 8, 2026, are, taken together, a second amended complaint, it does not appear that those documents were served. See Civ. R.
5. Requesters have therefore not complied with the March 18, 2026, order for a second amended complaint. See Kirk v. Coshocton Cty. Sheriff's Office, 2019-Ohio-1825, ¶ 3-4, adopted 2019-Ohio-2628 (Ct. of Cl.) (recommending dismissal based, in part, on failure to comply with court's order).
{¶14} Second, even if I consider the April 3 and April 8, 2026, filings to be a second amended complaint, those filings do not meet basic pleading requirements. As a general matter, "Ohio is a notice pleading state. Pursuant to notice pleading," a party "is required to allege sufficient facts to give [the opposing party] notice of [the] claim." (Cleaned up.) Byrd v. Meyer, 2022-Ohio-1827, ¶ 14 (10th Dist.). More specifically, a party invoking R.C. 2743.75 must "plead . . . facts showing that the requester sought an identifiable public record pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and that the public office or records custodian did not make the record available." Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 33. For that reason, this court has consistently held that "the only matters properly before the Court or Special Master are those identified in the body of the complaint." Hastings v. Washington Court House Bldg. & Zoning Dept., 2025-Ohio-1292, ¶ 7 (Ct. of Cl.).
{¶15} The April 3 and April 8, 2026, filings do not meet this standard. The documents contain numbered lists of, presumably, public records requests in dispute. These entries do not provide sufficient facts or description to determine the claim being
4
presented by the Requesters. For example, one entry reads: "1] To NBAdmin.- April 24,2025 Acknowledged 10 days later. Not fulfilled till August 22,2025 at least 20 days after 3 day cure. Not fulfilled in timely manner per R.C.149.43 A. [11] (sic) [.]" Req. Misc. Filing, filed Apr. 3, 2026. This statement does not provide the content of the original request, the records that Requesters claim should be produced (if any), or which Requester (or both) are aggrieved in relation to the request.
{¶16} Although not fatal, the April 3, 2026, filing also does not attach the original public records requests or related communications. R.C. 2743.75(D)(1); see also Langer
v. Ohio State Univ. Office of Univ. Compliance & Integrity, 2023-Ohio-2323, ¶ 15, adopted Ct. of Cl. No. 2023-00195PQ (Jul. 6, 2023). This deprives the court and the Village of additional context that might clarify Requesters' claims.2Requesters did attach a number of email communications to their original complaint. See Original Complaint, filed Aug. 22, 2025. I cannot consider those attachments to evaluate the sufficiency of either the first amended complaint or the April 3, 2026, filing. An amended complaint replaces any prior pleadings and renders them nonexistent. City of Hudson v. State, 2018-Ohio-2392, ¶ 10-11 (9th Dist.). "When there is an amended pleading, a judgment based on the original pleading is void." Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶17} Finally, even if Requesters were permitted a third opportunity to amend their complaint, the breadth of this case exceeds the scope of this special statutory process. If I assume that each numbered item in the April 3 and April 8, 2026, filings constitutes a disputed public records request, the Requesters have introduced claims regarding 15 separate requests. Further, Requesters jointly filed this case which appears to involve public records requests made from two separate email accounts. A party seeking to enforce public records requests through a R.C. 2743.75 action must show that it made the requests at issue. Bruno v. Ohio Aud.'s of State, 2024-Ohio-5312, ¶ 6-8, adopted Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00607PQ (Oct. 29, 2024). This case has been pending for over eight months. Allowing time for another pleading amendment and for development of all the
5
fact issues necessary for resolution of this case would exceed the scope of this court's
"expeditious and economical" public-records process. R.C. 2743.75(A).
{¶18} I therefore recommend that the court grant the Village's motion to dismiss and dismiss this case pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2).
B. Requesters' pending motions to enforce mediation confidentiality should be denied as moot.
{¶19} On February 6 and March 17, 2026, Requesters filed a combined motion to enforce mediation confidentiality and motion to strike. Reqs. Motion, filed Feb. 6, 2026; Reqs. Motion, filed Mar. 17, 2026. Requesters essentially argue that the Village violated the confidentiality of mediation proceedings by including the Mayor of the Village of North Baltimore in mediation communications. Requesters ask for relief, including striking any mediation communications from the record.
{¶20} Mediation in this case has concluded. Neither party has presented mediation communications as part of the record for decision. In fact, the only party who has filed alleged mediation communications to the public docket are Requesters, in support of their motion. The Village has not moved to strike those filings. Requesters' argument that the Village Mayor is not a mediation party on the Village's behalf is also not well-taken. R.C. 2710.01(E). I therefore recommend that Requester's pending motions to enforce mediation confidentiality be denied as moot.
C. Costs. {¶21} Revised Code 2743.75(F)(3)(b) provides that the court shall award a requester their filing fee and "any other costs associated with the action" if it finds a violation of the Public Records Act. I do not specifically find a violation of the Public Records Act because I recommend dismissal based on the Requesters' pleading deficiencies. It is clear, however, that the parties resolved part of the case in mediation. Therefore, I recommend that the costs of the case be split between the parties. Anthony
v. Columbus City Schools, 2021-Ohio-3241, ¶ 16 (Ct. of Cl.).
III. Conclusion {¶22} Based on the above considerations, I recommend that the court:
1) Grant respondent's motion to dismiss;
2) Dismiss this case pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2);
6
3) Deny as moot requesters' motions to enforce mediation confidentiality; and
4) Order the parties to split the costs of this case.
{¶23} 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 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).
SARAH PIERCE
Special Master
Filed May 7, 2026 Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/18/26
7