Background
David Annayan was involved in two consolidated civil cases in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and sought a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Steven Gall to rule on whether defendant Erik King must provide factual responses to discovery requests concerning the execution, notarization, and transmission of a verification page dated March 18, 2025. King had objected to Annayan’s third set of discovery requests on March 21, 2026, and indicated his intent to file a motion for protective order.
On March 25, 2026, Annayan filed a motion to strike King’s objections and seek sanctions. On March 29, 2026, he filed a second motion to compel compliance. Less than a week after the first motion, on March 30, 2026, Annayan filed his procedendo complaint, arguing that Judge Gall had a clear duty to rule on discovery matters within a reasonable time to permit discovery to proceed before the May 1, 2026 discovery cutoff. Shortly thereafter, Annayan filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court, which prevented Judge Gall from issuing substantive rulings pending resolution of the disqualification matter.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed Annayan’s procedendo complaint, holding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that procedendo is inappropriate where a trial court has not had an adequate opportunity to rule on pending motions. Annayan’s first motion to compel was pending for less than a week when he filed his procedendo petition, falling well within the 120-day timeframe prescribed by Ohio Supreme Court Rule 40(A)(3) for ruling on motions. Moreover, his second motion was filed after the procedendo complaint itself, meaning the judge never had a chance to address it before the procedendo was filed.
The court emphasized that procedendo will not lie to control ordinary court procedures or processes, and that courts possess inherent power to manage their own dockets. The court also found that Annayan’s own actions—specifically, filing the affidavit of disqualification—contributed to any delays by preventing Judge Gall from ruling. Finally, the court concluded that Annayan possessed adequate remedies at law, including filing a motion to extend the discovery deadline or raising discovery issues on appeal after final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Procedendo is premature when motions have been pending for a short time within the 120-day period established by court rule; no showing of “undue delay” had been made.
- A party cannot file procedendo before a trial court has had a reasonable opportunity to rule on pending motions; filing motions and then immediately seeking procedendo fails this requirement.
- A litigant who contributes to trial court delays—such as by filing an affidavit of disqualification that prevents the judge from ruling—cannot then invoke those delays as grounds for procedendo relief.
- Procedendo is not a substitute for ordinary motion practice or an end-run around appellate review; adequate remedies at law (motion to extend deadlines, appeal) preclude extraordinary writ relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Ohio’s restrictive approach to procedendo as an extraordinary remedy. Trial courts need reasonable time to manage their dockets and rule on ordinary discovery disputes. Litigants cannot use procedendo to pressure courts into accelerated rulings when no genuine undue delay has occurred. The decision also clarifies that a party’s own litigation tactics—such as disqualifying a judge—cannot later support a claim that the judge failed in his duties.
The ruling protects judicial discretion in managing discovery and procedural schedules while preventing procedendo from becoming a tool for gamesmanship. Parties dissatisfied with discovery rulings or the pace of litigation have traditional remedies: motions to extend deadlines, and ultimately, appellate review of preserved issues following final judgment.