When parties are at odds, threatening each other with lawsuits, there’s often a “race to the courthouse” to get the advantage of a favorable jurisdiction. That’s why courts have developed “jurisdictional priority” rules when cases are simultaneously filed in courts in different states or in federal and state courts. Usually, those rules are based on “first to file” or “first to get service” principles that determine which court has proper jurisdiction over the dispute. But what happens when two separate lawsuits involving the same dispute get filed in the same court but in front of two different judges? Do those jurisdictional priority rules apply?
The Ohio Supreme Court has now said “no” to that question. In State ex rel. Consortium for Economic and Community Development for Hough Ward 7 v. Russo, 2017-Ohio-8133, an action was filed in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to quiet title on a piece of real property. Months later, a tax foreclosure suit was filed in connection with the same property. A party in the latter suit challenged the judge’s jurisdiction because of the existence of the prior suit, claiming that the existence of the first suit left the judge without jurisdiction under the priority rules. The Supreme Court rejected the contention, concluding that “the rule has no applicability when cases are pending in the same court.” The Court reached this decision based in large part on the fact that the remedy for dual cases in such a situation is consolidation, a remedy not available when cases are filed in different courts. See the full text of the court’s decision