IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESPONDENT ETNA TOWNSHIP'S ANSWER TO RELATORS' COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Transcription

1 Ls! IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO /n, w" State of Ohio, ex rel. Ascena Retail group, Inc., et al., Relators, Case No.: V. Original action in mandamus City of Reynoldsburg, et al., Respondents. RESPONDENT ETNA TOWNSHIP'S ANSWER TO RELATORS' COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS John W. Zeiger ( ) Steven W. Tigges ( ) Daniel P. Mead ( ) ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 3500 Columbus, Ohio Telephone: (614) zei gerglitohio.com tiaes a)litaliio,com mead ^litohio.com Attorneys for Relator s Thomas M. Zaino ( ) Richard C. Farrin ( ) Debora C. Dardinger McGraw ( ) ZAINO HALL & FARRIN LLC 41 S. High Street, Suite 3600 Telephone: (614) tzaino a)zhftaxlaw.com rfarrin cr)zhftaxlaw.com dmcgrar, c^)zl7ftaxlaw.com Co-counsel for Relators David Frank ( ) Michael S. Loughry ( ) MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A. 175 South Third Street, Suite 1000 Phone: (614) Fax: (614) mloup-hry^a)mrrlaw. com Attornev for Respondent City of Reynoldsburg Patrick Kasson ( ) Melvin Davis ( ) Tyler Tamey ( ) RIEMINGER CO. L.P.A. 65 East State Street, 4th Floor Columbus, Ohio TEL: (614) ; FAX: (614) pkassonn,reminger.coin mdavis reminger.corn ttarneya,remin er.com Attorneys.for Respondent Etna Township,., % :1...,.. ci, ;s r'.s>...^<.,:3 {..^...^..,.f i ^ ^^^r^.^. ^ i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i.^^ }.l ^ ^ ^^...^...^...e_.... %/

2 State of Ohio, ex rel. Ascena Retail group, Inc., et al., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Relators, : Case No.: i V. City of Reynoldsburg, et al., Respondents. RESPONDENT ETNA TOWNSHIP'S ANSWER TO RELATORS' COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS FIRST DEFENSE Respondent Etna Township ("Etna Township") hereby responds to Relators' Complaint for Writ of Mandamus as set forth below: l. Paragraph I contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; 2. Paragraph 2 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; 3. Paragraph 3 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; 4. Etna Township denies, for want of knowledge, the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies, for want of knowledge, the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies, for want of knowledge, the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township admits the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township admits the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 9. 2

3 10. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, 12. Paragraph 12 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; 13. Paragraph 13 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; otherwise, deny, 14. Paragraph 14 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; 15, Paragraph 15 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required; otherwise, deny, 16. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies, for want of knowledge, the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 25, 26. Paragraph 26 refers to a document that speaks for itself; 27. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna 'I"ownship denies the allegations in Paragraph 28. 3

4 29. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 31, 32. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township reincorporates all previous responses in this Answer as if fully rewritten herein, 34, Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 34, 35. Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph Etna Township denies the allegations in Paragraph 36. SECOND DEFENSE 37. Relators failed to join necessary and/or additional parties to this case as required by Civ. R. 19, Civ. R. 19.1, and/or R.C THIRD DEFENSE 38. This Court lacks subject matter and/or original jurisdiction over Relators' Complaint, and is barred under the jurisdictional priority rule. FOURTH DEFENSE 39. Venue is improper. FIFTH DEFENSE 40, I'his action, in whole or in part, is not ripe for adjudication. SIXTH DEFENSE 41. Relators have plain and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law that are complete, beneficial, and speedy. 4

5 SEVENTH DEFENSE 42. Relators have no legal right to the relief requested in the Complaint. EIGHTH DEFENSE 43. Etna Township is under no legal duty to perform the acts alleged in Relators' Complaint. NINTH DEFENSE 44. Etna Township denies all allegations not expressly admitted in this Answer. T'ENTH DEFENSE 45. R.C and/or Substitute House Bill 289, facially and as applied to Etna Township, are unconstitutional in whole or in part under the United States Constitution, including the Contracts Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the doctrine of federal preetnption. ELEVENTH DEFENSE 46. R.C. 719,691 and/or Substitute House Bill 289, facially and as applied to Etna Township, are unconstitutional in whole or in part under the Ohio Constitution. TWELVTH DEFENSE 47. Etna T'ownship properly notified all parties in accordance with R.C. 2721,12. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 48. Relators' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 49. The Contract, attached as Exhibit I to Relators' Affidavit in Support of Complaint for Writ of Mandamus, is a valid and enforceable contract, is legal, and all provisions are properly supported by the requisite consideration. 5

6 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 50. Relators' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, accord and satisfaction, estoppel, laches, set-off, and/or settlement. SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 51. Relators' claims are bar-red by the doctrines of unclean hands and/or unjust enrichment. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 52. Relators' claims are barred by the "municipal home rule," EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 53. Etna Township's conduct was at all relevant times in compliance with Ohio's Public Records Act and Ohio's Open Meetings Act. NINETEENTH DEFENSE 54. Etna Township's acts were at all relevant times conducted in good faith andlor supported with valid and legal excuses, TWENTIETH DEFENSE 55. Relators' claims are barred by their own comparative or contributory negligence. TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE 56. Some or all of the allegations and claims set forth in Relators' Complaint for Writ of Mandamus are barred by an intervening and/or superseding cause thereby relieving Etna Township of all and any responsibility, TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE 57. Even if Relators' allegations in the Complaint are true, which is expressly denied, Relators suffered no damages, 6

7 TWENTY-TIIIRD DEFENSE 58. Relators failed to mitigate their damages, if any. TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE 59, The damages sustained by Relators, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the liability of other persons and/or parties and/or entities, other than Etna Township and as a result any right of recovery must be diminished in whole or in part. 'TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE 60. In the event that Etna Township is found negligent or at fault, though such liability is expressly denied, Etna Township is only liable for its proportionate share under R.C , et seq. TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE 61. Any allocation of fault by the trier of fact must be consistent with R.C. 2307,22, et seq., R.C , et seq. et seq. TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE 62. Any allocation of liability must include the fault of nonparties per R.C , TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE 63. Relators are not entitled to attorneys' fees. TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE 64. Relators' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. THIRTIETH DEFENSE 65. Relators reserve the right to add additional Affirmative Defenses. 7

8 WHEREFORE, Etna Township prays that Relators' Complaint for Writ of Mandamus be dismissed with prejudice, that the August 5, 2014 special election concerning the April 3, 2014 Joint Econoinic Development Contract between the City of Reynoldsburg and Etna Township go forward, and that Relators be ordered to pay all costs and reasonable attorney fees sustained by Etna Township. Respectfully submitted, Patrick Kass n ( ) (Counsel of Record) Melvin J. Davis ( ) Tyler Tarney ( ) REMINGER CO., L.P.A. Capitol Square Building, 4th Floor 65 E. State Street Columbus, Ohio Phone: (614) Fax: (614) pkasson(a^reininger. com mdavis a rernin er.com ttarne 1rernin get.com Attorneys for Respondent Etna Township

9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This will certify that a true and accurate copy was served on the following via on June 23, 2014: John W. Zeiger ( ) Steven W. Tigges ( ) Daniel P. Mead ( ) ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 3500 Columbus, Ohio Telephone: (614) zeiler a7litohio.com t_jgges(cl^,litohio.con7 mead; z;litohio.com Attorneys for Relators Thomas M. Zaino ( ) Richard C. Farrin ( ) Debora C. Dardinger McGraw ( ) ZAINO HALL & FARRIN LLC 41 S. High Street, Suite 3600 Telephone: (614) tzaino^2zhftaxlaw.com rfarrir^fa^zhftaxlaw.con^ dmc raw a,zhftaxlaw.com Co-counsel for Relators David Frank ( ) Michael S. L,oughry ( ) MAZANEC, RASKIN & RYDER CO., L.P.A. 175 South Third Street, Suite 1000 Phone: (614) Fax: (614) niloug hr.l(ir)mrrl aw.com Attorney for Respondent City qfreynoldsliurg Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (via and overniglit mail) 30 E. Broad St., 14`" Floor ^^, Tyler Tarn ( ) 9