Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., AHMED L. RADWAN Relator,
JUDGE TONYA R. JONES, ET AL., Respondents.
of Prohibition Motion No. 529447 Order No. 530914
Stahl, Jansen, L.L.C., Richard J. Stahl, and Edward R.
Jansen, for relator.
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Nora E. Poore, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
for respondents Judge Tonya R. Jones and Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division.
Stafford Law Co., L.P.A., Joseph G. Stafford, and Nicole A.
Cruz, for respondent Amina Radwan.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
1} On April 18, 2019, the relator, Ahmed Radwan,
commenced this prohibition action against the respondents,
Judge Tonya R. Jones and the Domestic Relations Division of
the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to prohibit them from
exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case, Radwan
v. Radwan, Cuyahoga C.P. No. DR-17-368933. On June 17,
2019, the respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds of
mootness. For the following reasons, this court grants the
respondents' dispositive motion and dismisses the
application for a writ of prohibition.
2} As discerned from the pleadings and their
attachments, Ahmed and Amina were married in Egypt in 1974;
their children are now emancipated. The couple spent most of
their married life in Ohio. At least six months before
February 2015, Mr. Radwan moved to Texas, and in February
2015, filed for divorce, Radwan v. Radwan, Texas
District Court, 426th Judicial District Case No. 275, 695-E.
In granting the divorce on November 17, 2015, the Texas court
ruled that Mrs. Radwan had made a special appearance and that
it lacked in personam jurisdiction over her and therefore
made no orders regarding the marital estate of the parties.
3} Mrs. Radwan filed for divorce in Ohio on August
6, 2015, Radwan v. Radwan, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
DR-15-358277. The docket of that case shows that after
litigating the case for more than two years, the parties
jointly and voluntarily dismissed the case on October 2,
4} Mrs. Radwan commenced the underlying case on
September 25, 2017. The respondent judge set the matter for
trial beginning April 24, 2019. Mr. Radwan then commenced
this prohibition action, arguing that the Texas divorce case
deprived the respondents of jurisdiction over the underlying
case. Mr. Radwan also filed a motion to dismiss in the
underlying case on April 19, 2019. When this court clarified
that the mere filing of a prohibition action does not act as
a stay, the respondent judge granted Mr. Radwan's motion
to dismiss because the Texas divorce case deprived it of
subject matter jurisdiction. Mrs. Radwan filed a notice of
appeal the next day, Radwan v. Radwan, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 108649.
5} Therefore, this prohibition action is
The respondents will not be exercising further judicial power
over the case, and the issue of subject matter jurisdiction
will be decided through the adequate remedy of appeal.
6} Accordingly, the court grants the
respondents' motion to dismiss and dismisses the
application for a writ of prohibition. Relator to pays costs.
This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the
journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).