^ s{ v. - sconet.state.oh.us special cour-isel 110 central plaza south., ste. 240 canton, ohio 44702...
Post on 04-Jun-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
No. 2014-0374
Original Action for Writ of Prohibition
Expedited Election Matter Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08
In the Supreme Court of Ohio
STATE OF OII:IO ex rel. CYNTHIA BALA.S-BRATTON
Relator,
V.
JON Ht.1STEi), OHTO SECRETARY OFand
STARK COUNTY 13OAR]? OF ELECTI
Respondents.
^ S{
ry^y,t^Ali^ {7 S.. ^.. .. /
)F • LS
; :.>-,;^^, ,_,,.• i•,.
3'...•,^::^.`i;ie:j^:^, ....^ ^.!f$
- ----- -------------
1VIOTION OF GEORGE 1'. MAIER FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Craig T. Conley (0021585)604 Huntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 3130.4511900Facsimile: 330.4512170
:2ttorney for Reltztor
David M. Bridenstine (0001223)Special Cour-isel110 Central Plaza South., Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 3 3 0.4 51.706 5Facsimile: 330.451.7906Email: dmbridenstane,^i^,starkcountyohia.gov
Ryan L. Richardson (0090382)Erzr:Btttcher-Lyden (0087278)A s;st.ant Attorneys GeneralCon5titi2tional Off'icf-s Sed: tioxi30 E. I3road St., 16t1i FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone; 614.466.2872Facsimile: 614.728.7592Emai1:Ryan.Richardson c^ohioattorneyges^exiil,govErin.Butcher-Lyden)ohioattorney^;^^i^^eral.. ;ov
Attor•neys for Responcient Jon Ilzr,sded
Thomas L. Rosenberg (0024898)Michael R. T'raven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetC`olumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770
Facsimile: 614.463.9792Attorraey for Respondent Stark County Board Email: trosenberg cr;ralaw.comof Elections mtravenCa,,ralaw.com
Attorneys_for Proposed Intervenor George :I'Maier
Pursuant to Rules 24(A)(2) and 24(B)(2) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, as made
applicable herein by Rule 12.01 of the Supreme Court Practice Rules, George T. Maier
('"Maier'') respectfully requests leave of Court to intervene in this matter as a Respondent. The
Verified Complaint for Writ of Prohibition seeks to prohibit the named Respondents "'from
including Maier on the May Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Stark County Sheriff."
Conlpl. T, 41. The Complaint is a direct result of a protest filed by the Relator with Respondent
Stark County Board of Elections challenging whether Maier is legally qualified to be on the May
6, 2014 primary ballot, a proceeding in which Maier and the undersigned counsel directly
participated. Respondent, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Flusted, issued a tie-breaking vote in favor
of denying the protest. In order to protect his rights and interests in this proceeding, Maier
submits that intervention as a Respondent is appropriate. Pursuant to Civ. R. 24(C), attached
hereto as F,xhibit I, is the proposed Answer and Defenses that Maier intends to file wiilz the
Court if intervention is granted. I^urther support for this Motion is set forth in the attached
Memorandum in Suppon.
2
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetCUlumbus, Ol-iio 43215'I'eleprone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: trosezlberg(&,ralaw.coin
mtraven@ral.aw.com
Attorneys, forTroposed Intervenor George TlVarer
Respectfully submitted,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
I. RELEVANT FACTS
On February 5, 2013, Maier was appointed by the Stark County Democratic Central
Committee ("DCC") as Sheriff of Stark County following the resignation of the duly-elected
sheriff, Michael A. McDonald, due to health reasons. Shortly thereafter, Maier's appointment as
Sheriff was challenged via quo warranto proceedings before this Court. See State ex rel.
Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 2013-Ohio-4767. On November 6, 2013, in the
Swanson decision, this Court detern.r.hined that Maier failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C.
311,01(B)(8)(a). See id. ^ 39. Following the decision in Swanson, Maier sought employment
frona and was hired by the Harrison County Sheriff's Office as a full-time Deputy Sheriff, a
position Maier held from November 8, 2013, until December 5, 2013.
Because his employment with Harrison County satisfied the R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a)
statutozyy requirement, Maier sought re-appointnient as Sheriff of Stark County at the DCC's
December 11, 2013 meeting. At the meeting, Maier was appointed by an overwhelming
majority vote (101 of the 166 votes). Since that time, Maier has faithfully served and perforrned
hi..s duties as Stark County Sheriff.
In order to run for election as Sheriff in 2014, to fill the unexpired term, Maier submitted
his Application for Candidacy ("Application") with. Respondent Stark Couzity Board of Elections
("BOE"') on January 28, 2014. See C:ompl. °., 4-5. On February 11, 2014, Relator, Cynthia
Balas-Bratton ("Relator"), filed a protest with the BOE claiming that Maier failed to meet two of
the statutory qualifications to serve as Sheriff, specifically R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) and (b), and
(B)(9)(a) and (b) (the "Protest"). Se(^ id. '!^,,; 3, 8, and Ex. A to CompL The Protest sought to
exelude Maier from appearing on the May 6, 2014 Democratic Prhnary ballot.
4
On February 21, 2014, the BOE held a public hearing with respect to the Protest. See id.
^( 17. Maier was represented at the hearing by the undersigned counsel. The BOE conducted the
hearing similar to a trial procceding-it permitted direct and cross-examination by counsel,
allowed and ruled upon objections, and admitted documentary evidence. Following a day-long
hearing in which four witnesses testified and the parties introduced a combined twenty-three
exhibits, the four BOE members voted, see Compl. ¶ 23, with the two Democratic members----
Fe..rrucio and St. John-voting to deny the protest, and the two Republican members-Cline and
Braden-voting to grant the protest. See id.
Diie to the existence of a tie-vote, the matter was referred to Respondent Jon Husted,
Ohio Secretary of State ("Husted"). See id. ¶ 25. On March 7, 2014, Husted issued his tie-
breaking decision, voting to deny the Protest. Unwilling to accept the decision of the BOE and
Husted, Relator filed this original action in prohibition in another attempt to keep Maier off the
ballot.
Maier has a right and interest in participating in this proceeding that seeks to exclude him
as a candidate in the upcoming primary election. Moreover, the current Respondents do not
adequately protect his rights and interests. This Court should grant him leave to intervene as a
Respondent to allow Maier to protect his rights and interests.
Il:. LAW ANll AltGUMENT
As an initial matter. Maier notes that this Court has granted leave to intervene to the
candidate that is the subject of a writ of prohibition filed against a county board of elections in
numerous other cases. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hoag v. Lucas Cty.Bd_of Elections, 125 Ohio
St.3d 49, 2010mOh.io-1629, Ti, 5 ("We granted the motion of the Lucas County Republican Party
and John Lavelle, one of the candidates Hoag seeks to remove from the ballot, to intervene as
additional respondents."); see also Stateex re.l. Scherach v. Lorai^ C'tty. BtL of Elec., Case No.
5
2009-1685, Entry filed 9/28/09; State ex rel. Stewart v. Cliiiton Ct,.y Bd. of Elec., Case No. 2010-
0434, Entry filed 3/15/10. This Court should follow this precedent and grant leave to Maier to
intervene.
A) Maier Has the Right to Intervene in this Matter.
Civ. R. 24(A) addresses intervention of right, and states in pertinent part:
Upon timely application, anyone shall be permitted to intervene inan action:
*^x*^
(2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to theproperty or transaction is the subject of the action and the applicantis so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practicalmatter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect thatinterest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented byexisting parties.
Civ.R. 24(A)(2). Thus, as stated in the rule itself, in order to intervene as of right piirsuat to
Civil Rule 24(A)(2), the intervenor must establish four elements: ( 1) the rnotion to intervene
must be timely filed; (2) the intervenor must claim an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the lawsuit; (3) the intervenor must show that the disposition
of the lawsuit may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and
(4) the intervenor m u.st show that its interests are not adequately represented by the existing
parties. This Court should apply these standards liberally to pernlit intervention. Se^L)eo't
of rdm. Serv. v. State En^1^Rel. Bd., 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 51 (1990).
1) Maier's Motion Is Filed Tirn.ely.
This Court has held that a determination of the timeliness of a motion to intervene is a
fact-speciflc inquiry on a case-by-case basis. State ex rel. First New Shiloh Baptist _Qhijrch v.
Mea gl zer, 82 Ohio St3c_i 501, 503 (1998). Factors to consider include the following:
6
(1) the point to wltich the suit had progressed; (2) the purpose forwhich intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding theapplication during which the proposed intervenor knew orreasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (4) theprejudice to tlie original parties due to the proposed intervenor'sfailure after he knew or reasonably should have known of hisinterest in the case to apply promptly for inteivention; and (5) theexistence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor ofintervention.
Ic1. (quoting Triax Co. y. 'I'RW, Inc., 724 F.2d. 1224, 1228 (6th Cir. 1984)).
Here, the Complaint was filed one week ago. As of the filing of this Motion, it is
believed tl#at the Respondents may have just been served with a copy of the Szimrnons and
Complaint. This Motion is filed before the Answer date has passed under the expedited
procedures pursuant to S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08(A)(1). As required by Civ. R. 24(C), Maier is
attaching a copy of his Answer and Defenses and is serving a copy of this Motion upon Relator's
and Respondents' counsel electronically, as required under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08(C)., in other
words, the timing of this Motion will not prejudice any of the parties in this action.
2) Maier Has an Interest in the Suh.iect of this Proceeding.
In order to meet this element of the intervention of right analysis, the proposed interveior
must demonstrate that his interest in the matter is "legalIy protectable." ^, State ex reL Merrill
v. Uhio Dep't of Nat'I Res., 130 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-C)hio-4612, ¶ 42. There can be no serious
doubt that Maier has a direct interest in this proceeding. This case directly relates to Maier's
ability azid right to have his nazne on the May 6th Democratic primary ballot. Should the Coizrt
deny the writ requested by the Relator, Maier's name will appear on the ballot; if the writ is
granted, it will not. In other words, Maier.'s interests in having his naine on the ballot are
directly at issue in this case. This Cotzrt has frequently allowed candidates to file corn.plaints for
a writ of nlandaznus against county boards of elections w}ien they have refused to place their
name on the ballot following a protest hearing. See, State ex rel. Yeager v. Richlaslcl_,^.^tyrt
7
Bd. of Elec., 136 Ohio St.3d 327, 2013-Ohio-3862. Even though Maier was successful in
obtaining a denial of the Relator's Protest, he should not be precluded from the right to directly
participate in these proceedings as a party.
Accordingly, Maier should be permitted to intervene to protect his interests in the
outcome of this matter.
3) yisposition of this Case Will Impair or Impede Maier's Akatlity toProtect His Interests.
Disposition of this case will impair or impede Maier's ability to protect his interests, as
stated above. Indeeci, this case will determine whether Maier's name can appear on the May 6th
Democratic primary ballot. An adverse ruling would preclude Maier's ability to serve as to +'te
Democratic candidate for Sheriff of Stark County at the general election in Novetnber 2014.
4) IYIaier'sInterests Are Not Acleguatety Represented bw the ExistinPa,rtAes>
The burden to meet the inadeciuate-representation element is "minimal." See Trbovich v.
linited Mine Workers of Am,, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972) ("The requirement of the Rule is
satisfied 'zf the applicant shows that representation of his interest `may be' izladeqLzate; and. the
burden of rnal€ing that showing shottld be treated. as miiliznal."). The issue is not whether the
counsel representing the Respondents are coznpeten.t or adequate. histead, the issue is whether
the interests of the Respondents, for which their lawyers will be advocatirzg, are the same as the
in.terests of Maier.
FIere, the Stark County BOE tied 2-2 regarding Maier's qualifications. The attorney who
has been retained by the BOIi; to defend this action is not the attorney of choice of either of the
Democratic members of thc :E3OT?^. ]
1 The County Prosecutor has recused himself from representiiig the BOE due to a conflict ofinterest.
8
As it relates to counsel representing Husted, it is Maier's understanding and belief that
they will be advocating 1-lusted's position in his tie-breaking vote, which denied the Protest.
While Maier certainly agrees with lIusted's decision, there are other issues in Relator's
Complaint that will likely not be addressed by Husted because they concern actions at the
County level of government, not the State level.
In order to ensure that Maier's interests are represented, this Court should grant him leave
to intervene.
B) AlternativelyLMaier Should be Permitted to Intervene, Permissively.
Alternatively, if the Court determines that Maier has failed to meet any of the elements
required under Civ. R. 24(A)(2), it should grant him leave to intervene in this matter
perrnissively. Civ. R. 24(B)(2) states:
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene inan action: ...(2) when an applicant's claim or defense and themain action have a question of law or fact in common.... Inexercising its discretion the court shall consider whether theintervention will rinduly delay or prejud.ice the adjudication of therights of the original parties.
[d. Maier also meets this standard. For all of the reasons set forth above, he has an interest in
the facts and law at issue in this case. And, becatise this case was just filed days ago, and, in,
fact, no answers have beerl filed by the Respondents, intervention will not unduly delay or
prejudice the original parties.
Accordingly, Maier requests that the Court, at a minimum, grant permissive intervention
Linder Civil Rule 24(B).
ITIm CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Proposed Tntervenor George T. Maier respectfully
reqtiests that the Court issue an Order granting him leave to iiltervene and to be made a party-
9
Respondent. As stated above, and in accordance with Civ. R. 24(C), Maier attaches hereto his
proposed Answer and I7efenses to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas L. Ro,znberg (0(^24898)Michael R. Ttaven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPi\TC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: trosenberg(cr;ralaw.Gom
mtravenCralaw.com
Attornel,s for Proposed Inter-venor Ceorge 7:Maier
10
PIdOC?F OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was served on March 17, 2014 pursuant to Civ. R. 5(B)(2)(f),
and S. Ct. R. 12.08(C) by e-mail/facsimile as noted below, to:
Craig T. Co.nley604 Huntington Plaza2201Vlarket Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Facsimile: 330.453.2170
Attorney forRelator
David M. Bridenstine110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Email: dmbridenstine@starkcountyobioogov
Attorney forRespondent ^StaYk County Boardof Elections
Ryan L. RichardsonErin Butcher-LydenAssistant Attorneys GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th l'loorColumbus, Ohio 43215Email:Ryan.Richcardsongohioattorraey,^,eneral.govErin. Butcta er-Lyden@obioattorneygeneral.b ov
Ylttorneys for Respondent Jon Husted
Micb:ael R. Tr - K e n (00811 8 )Attorney for Respondent
11
No. 2014-0374
Original Action for Writ of Prohibition
Expedited Election Matter Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 12.08
In the Supreme Court of Ohio
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CYNTHIA BALAS-BRATTON
Relator,
V.
JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATEand
STARK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Respondents.
ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR-RESPONDENTGEORGE T. MAIER
Craig T. Conley (0021585)604 F-Iuntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, nhio 44702Telephone: 33 0.453.1900Facsimile: 330.453.2170
Attorney for Relator
David M. Bridenstine (0001223)Special Counsel110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240Canton, Ohio 44702Telephone: 330.451.7065Facsimile: 330,451.7906
8115942 __1
Ryan L. Richardson (00903 82)Erin Butcher-Lyden (0087278)Assistant Attorneys GeneralConstittttional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.466.2872Facsimile: 614.728.7592Email:Ryan.Rzchardson^a,,ohioattorneygeneral . govErin_B utcher-Lyden((^ohioattorneygenerat. gov
Attorneys for Respondent Jon Hzssted
Thomas I,. IZosenberg (0024898)Michael R. Traven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, L33A.PNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad SireetColumbus, Ohio 43215
^IUF
JJ
i
I;mai1: dmbridenstine@starkeountyohio.gov I'elephone: 614.463 9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792
Attorney, f`or Respondent :.'^tark County Board Em.ail: trosenberg^r^,ralaw.comof Dections mtraven@xalaw.com
Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor George 7'Maier
Proposed Inteivenor-Respondent, George T. Maier ("Maier"), files this Answer and
Defenses to the Relator's Complaint for Writ of Prohibition ("Complaint"), and in support, states
as follows:
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
1. The allegations con.tained in Paragraph I of the Complaint purport to explain the
purpose of the filing the Complaint and do not require an affirmative response from Maier. To
the extent that a response is required, Maier denies the allegations.
2. The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 state a legal conclusion, to which a
response is not required. To the extent that a response is necessary, the allegations are admitted.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
3. The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are admitted.
4. In response to Paragraph 4, Maier admits that he filed his Application for
Candidacy ("Application") with tlle Stark County Board of Elections ("BOE") on January 28,
2014, and that the Application contained voluminous documentation to support his qualifications
to be a candidate for the Sheriff of Stark County. Maier further admits that the docutnent
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B is one of the documents he subniit.ted with his
Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All other allegations contained in
Paragraph 4 are denied.
2S1]5942 1
5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are adniitted, except that the allegation
that Maier's Application was not "thereafter timely amended or supplemented by [Maier]," is
denied.
6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 purport to explain or characterize the
Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. The allegations are denied to the
extent they are at variance with the Application, are incomplete, and/or ignore other aspects of
the Application.
7. "I'he allegations contained in Paragraph 7 purport to explain or characterize the
Application, which is a written document that speaks for itself. The allegations are denied to the
extent they are at variance with the Application, are incoznplete, and/or ignore aspects of the
Application.
8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 purport to explain or characterize the
Protest, which is a written document that speaks for itself: The allegations are denied to the
extent they are at variance with the Protest, are incomplete, and/or ignore other aspects of the
Protest. Maier specifically denies that he fails to meet the statutory requirements under R.C.
311.01(B)(9)(a) or (b), or that his candidacy is barred by R.C. 2733.14 or this Court's decision in
State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, 137 Ohio St.3d 400, 2013-Qhio-4767.
9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 are admitted.
10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 purport to explain or characterite
written documents which speak for themselves. Although the documents referenced are not
attached to the Complaint5 Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the
written documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of those written documents.
38115942 1
11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 purport to explain or characterize the
written documents referenced in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, which are not attached to the
Coinplaint. Answering further, it is admitted that th.ere is a document attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit C, which is a written document that speaks for itself. All allegations in Paragraph 11
are denied to the extent they are at variance with the written documents, are incomplete, and/or
ignore aspects of those written documents. Any allegations that do not reference or purport to
explain or characterize the referenced written documents are denied for want of knowledge.
12. The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 purport to explain or characterize a
document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D, which. is a written document that speaks for
itself. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the
Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit.
13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 13 are denied for want of knowledge.
14. The allegations contained in Paragraph 14 purport to explain or characterize a
written document which speaks for itself. Although the document referenced is not attached to
the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the written
documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document.
15. The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 purport to explain or characterize a
written document which speaks for itself. Although the document referenced is not attached to
the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the written
documents, are incoinplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document.
16. The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 purport to explain or characterize a
written document which speaks for itself. Although the document referenced is not attached to
the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the written
481)59421
documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of that written document. Any allegations that
do not reference or purport to explain or characterize the referenced written document are denied
for want of knowledge.
17. In response to Paragraph 17, it is admitted that the BOE conducted its protest
hearing on February 21, 2014 (the "Hear.ing"), that counsel for the Relator made certain verbal
objections near the beginning of the hearing, that the BOE Chairman, Mr. Ferrucio, overruled
said objections, and that all four members of the BOE participated in the Hearing. All other
allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied for want of knowledge.
18. In response to Paragraph 18, it is admitted that Maier argued and provided
evidence at the Hearing that he satisfies R.C. j 11.01(B)(9)(a), in part, because of his tenure with
the Ohio Department of Public Safety as Assistant Director and, for a short time, as Interim
Director. Answering further, Maier admits that the Application references this work history, and
that his Application identifies, as part of his Employment History, that he was the current Stark
County Sheriff, from " 12/12/2013 to present." The other allegations contained in Paragraph 18
purport to characterize this Court's decision in State ex rel. Wolfe v. Delaware Cty_Bd. of Elec.,
88 Ohio St3d 182 (2000), wllich is a written decision that speaks for itself. Maier specifically
denies Relator's characterization of Wolfe.
19. In response to Paragraph 19, it is admitted that Maier argued and provided
evidence at the Hearing that he satisfies R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) based upon a Prior Learning
Assessment conducted by Stark State College, which determined that Maier had an equivalency
of 67 college level semester hours, excluding any consideration of any training hours,
certifications or curriculum from the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy or OPOTA, and
58115942 ....1
that only 48 semester hours are required to meet the statutory equivalency requirement. All other
allegations in Paragraph 19 not otherwise expressly admitted are denied.
20. In response to Paragraph 20, it is admitted that Relator made certain arguments
during the Hearing that Maier failed to satisfy the R.C. 311.01(I3)(9)(a) requirements, but it is
specifically denied that Maier fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 311.01(I3)(9)(a). It is
further admitted that, during the requisite qualification period, Maier's time as Assistant'Interim
Director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety was approximately twenty-three (23) months.
Answering further, some of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 purport to characterize this
Court's decision in Wellingto.n v. Mahoning! Ct .Bd. of Elec., 117 Ohio St.3d 143, 2008-Ohio-
554, which is a written decision that speaks for itself. Maier specifically denies Relator's
characterization of Wellin^,rton. All other allegations in Paragraph 20 not otherwise expressly
admitted are denied.
21. In response to Paragraph 21, it is admitted that Relator made certain arguments
during the Hearing that Maier failed to satisfy the R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b) requirements, but it is
specifically denied that Maier fails to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9)(b).
Answering fiirther, the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 purport to explain or characterize a
document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E, which is a written documerlt that speaks for
itself. The allegations in Paragraph 21 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the
Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit. All otl2er allegations in Paragraph
21 not otherurise expressly admitted are denied.
22. In response to Paragraph 22, Maier admits that he has not earned any credit at
Stark State College by attending classes at Stark State College. All other allegations in
Paragraph 22 not otherwise expressly admitted are denied.
681159421
23. The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 are admitted.
24. The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are denied for want of knowledge.
25. The allegations contained in Paragraph 25 are admitted.
26. The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 purport to explain or characterize
written documents which speak for themselves. Although the docuinents referenced are not
attached to the Complaint, Maier denies the allegations to the extent they are at variance with the
written documents, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of those written documents.
27. The allegations contained in Paragraph 27 purport to explain or characterize a
document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F, which is a vwitten document that speaks for
itself. The allegations in Paragraph 27 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the
Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit.
28. The allegations contained in Paragraph 28 purport to explain or characterize a
document attached to the Camplaint as Exhibit F, which is a written document that speaks for
itself. 'i'he allegations in Paragraph 28 are denied to the extent they are at variance with the
Exhibit, are incomplete, and/or ignore aspects of the Exhibit.
29. The allegations contained in Paragraph 29 state a legal conclusion, to which a
response is not required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
Answering further, the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 purport to characterize this Court's
decision in Wolfe, which is a written decision that speaks for itself> Maier specifically denies
Relator's characterization of Wolfe.
30. The allegations contained in Paragraph 30 state a legal conclusion, to which a
response is not required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
781159421
31. The allegations contained in Paragraph 31 state a legal conclusion, to which a.
response is not required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(WRIT OF PRC}HIBITION)
32. Paragraph 32 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required.
33. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 are denied.
34. The allegations contained in Paragraph 34 are denied.
35. The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 are denied.
36. The allegations contained in Paragraph 36 are denied.
37. The allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are denied.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(V6'RIT OF PROHIBITION)
38. Paragraph 38 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required.
39. The allegations contained in Paragraph 39 are denied.
40. The allegations contained in Paragraph 40 are denied.
41. The allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are denied.
42, Maier denies any allegations contained in the "WHEREFORE" clauses of the
Complaint, and denies that Relator is entitled to any of the relief she seeks.
AFFIRl"VIATIVE DEFENSES
Maier reserves the right to raise one or more of the following affirmative defenses, which
may be applicable, in whole or in part, to Relator's claims:
43. Maier denies each and every allegation in the Complaint not specifically admitted
to be true.
44. "I'he Complaint fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which relief can be
granted.
881159421
45. Relator's claims should be dismissed because she failed to meet her burden of
proof during the Hearing.
46. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator has failed and cannot
establish that Respondents' exercise of quasi-judicial power is unauthorized by law.
47. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator is unable to establish that
Maier's certification was a result of fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion.
48. Relator's claims should be dismissed because Relator cannot establish that injury
will result for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.
49, Relator's claims, in whole or in part, are barred because they are moot.
50. Relator's claims, in whole or in part, are barred due to laches.
51. Relator has failed to establish that she has a clear legal right to the relief
requested.
52. The Stark County Board of Elections and the Ohio Secretary of State strictly and
conipletely coniplied with all statutory requirements with respect to certification of Maier's
candidacy.
53. Relator is not entitled to attorneys' fees ancUor costs.
54. Maier reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Relator's ConlpIaint; Maier respectfully requests
that this Court dismiss Relator's Complaint with prejudice, and grant any further relief that may
be just or equitable, including an award of costs and/or attorney fees incurred by Maier in
connection with this action.
981159421
Respectfully submitted,
X^7
Thomas L / osenbe "" (0024898)Michael P:'Traven (0081158)ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPAPNC Plaza, Twelfth Floor155 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614.463.9770Facsimile: 614.463.9792Email: trosenberg@ralaw.com
m.traven@^ralaw.com
Attorneysfor Prol)osed jnterveyzor George T._Maier
1081159421
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was seived on March 17, 2014 pursuant to Civ. R, 5(Q)(2)(f);
and S. Ct. R. 12.08(C) by e-maillfacsiinile as noted below, to:
Craig T. Conley604 Huntington Plaza220 Market Avenue SouthCanton, Ohio 44702Fac.s ifnile: 330.453.2170
Attorney, for Relator
Ryan L. RichardsonErin Butcher-LydenAssistant Attorneys GeneralConstitutional Offices Section30 E. Broad St., 16th FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215.Email:Ryan. Richarclson@ohioattorne,ygetaeral g ovErin.Buttcher-Lyilen@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
David M. Bridenstine110 Central Plaza South, Ste. 240C'anton, Ohio 44702Email: dmbriclenstine aastarkcountyoltio.gov
Attorney f'or Resj)ondent Stark C'ozinty Boardof Elections
Attorneys for Respondent,Ion Husted
2---Mic'hac1 ^^Traven (0{^8115 8)Attorney or Respontient
1181159421
top related