Opinion
No. 81-1509
Decided June 30, 1982.
Mandamus — To compel application of doctrine of forum non conveniens — Writ denied.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
Appellant, Consolidated Rail Corporation, is the defendant in an action brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act presently pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Appellant filed a motion in that action requesting, alternatively, a dismissal or stay of proceedings, pending commencement of the action in Pennsylvania, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The motion was denied by appellee, Judge Frank J. Gorman.
Appellant then brought this action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, seeking a writ to compel appellee to reconsider appellant's motion, and to specifically apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeals denied the writ and the cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Skulina, Fillo, Walters Negrelli, Mr. Stephen D. Walters and Mr. Thomas R. Skulina, for appellant.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Patrick Carroll, for appellee. Komito, Nurenberg, Plevin, Jacobson, Heller McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Mr. Marshall I. Nurenberg and Mr. Harlan M. Gordon, for intervenor appellee.
A writ of mandamus may issue only where the relator shows (1) a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) a clear legal duty upon respondent to perform the act requested, and (3) that relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State, ex rel. Butler, v. Demis (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 123, 124; State, ex rel. Akron Fire Fighters, v. Akron (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 448, 450.
Appellant contends that appellee is under a clear legal duty to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In Hughes v. Scaffide (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 85, we discussed the doctrine of forum non conveniens, noting that "[s]tates are free to accept or reject it as a matter of state policy." Id., at 88. Ohio has not judicially adopted the doctrine, nor is it embodied in any rule or statute. As such, appellant can not demonstrate that appellee was under a duty to apply the doctrine, and the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus can not be fulfilled.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.