Legal Case

State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Mohiuddin

Mohiuddin

Citation

2025 Ohio 2692

Court

Unknown Court

Decided

July 31, 2025

Importance

35%

Standard

Practice Areas

Administrative Law
Constitutional Law

Case Summary

[Cite as State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Mohiuddin, 2025-Ohio-2692.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Ohio Attorney General, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 24AP-369 v. : (C.P.C. No. 21CV-1120) Leah Mohiuddin et al., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendants-Appellees. : D E C I S I O N Rendered on July 31, 2025 On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, T. Elliot Gaiser, and Jana M. Bosch, for appellant. Argued: Jana M. Bosch. On brief: Luther L. Liggett, Jr., for appellee Casey Goleb. Argued: Luther L. Liggett, Jr. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas DORRIAN, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, the Ohio Attorney General (“the state”), appeals from a decision and judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting an award of attorney fees to defendant-appellee, Casey Goleb. For the following reasons, we conclude this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the state’s appeal and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On February 22, 2021, the state filed a complaint against Leah Mohiuddin and appellee, Casey Goleb, seeking to recover funds pursuant to R.C. 117.28 based on a finding for recovery in the state auditor’s audit report for the state for the year ending June 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that Goleb was hired at Mohiuddin’s direction to be No. 24AP-369 2 an English Language Learners (“ELL”) instructor at the Sunrise Academy, a chartered nonpublic school in the Hilliard City School District. Goleb’s compensation and benefits for the relevant period were charged to the school district’s Auxiliary Services Fund which was provided by the Ohio Department of Education. The state’s complaint alleged, as determined in the auditor’s report, that there was no evidence that Sunrise Academy provided an ELL program or ELL services to its students. The state sought to recover a judgment against Mohiuddin and Goleb, jointly and severally, in the amount of $268,127.83, plus interest.1 {¶ 3} On March 31, 2021, Mohiuddin filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. On April 14, 2021, Mohiuddin filed a third-party complaint against third- party defendants, Mouhamed Nabih Tarazi, Sunrise Academy, the Hilliard City School District (“the school district”), and Brian Wilson as treasurer of the school district. The third-party complaint alleged that Mohiuddin acted at the direction and control of Tarazi and that she should be entitled to indemnification and/or contribution from the third-party defendants if found liable. Mohiuddin also alleged that the school district and Wilson breached a duty owed her and Goleb by directing and facilitating the payments at issue. Mohiuddin also sought indemnification from the third-party defendants should she be found liable under the state’s complaint. {¶ 4} Between April 2021 and January 2022, the parties submitted competing dispositive motions. On November 15, 2021, Goleb filed an answer to the state’s complaint. {¶ 5} By a decision dated April 18, 2022, the trial court granted Tarazi and Sunrise Academy’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Mohiuddin’s claim for indemnification against them had not yet accrued because she had not been found liable under the state’s complaint. On the same day, the trial court issued a decision granting the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the school district and Wilson. The trial court also issued a decision denying Mohiuddin and Goleb’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and, by the same decision, denied the state’s motion for summary judgment. {¶ 6} A jury trial was scheduled to begin on December 12, 2022. On December 8, 2022, the trial court received a notice stating that Mohiuddin had filed a bankruptcy 1 The judgment amount sought was based on the auditor’s finding that Goleb was paid $198,746 in compensation and benefits, plus a calculation of interest. No. 24AP-369 3 petition which invoked an automatic stay under federal law. On September 26, 2023, on the request of Goleb and the state, the trial court issued a decision granting the state’s motion to reactivate its claims against Goleb, and it set the case for a trial. {¶ 7} A jury trial began on January 29, 2024. Following t

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

July 31, 2025

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Standard
Score35%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
State Authority
Individual Rights
Attorney General Powers

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJul 31, 2025
UpdatedAug 4, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

Summary of the key points and legal principles

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

State Authority
Individual Rights
Attorney General Powers

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJuly 31, 2025
Date DecidedJuly 31, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.3
Judicial Panel
Dorrian
Opinion Author
Dorrian

Similar Cases

5

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

James Jones v. Harry

80% match
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Aug 2025

BLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1387 ___________ JAMES JONES, Appellant v. DR. HARRY, COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY, PA DOC; J. TERRA, SUPERINTENDENT; KERI MOORE, CHIEF GRIEVANCE OFFICER; C.E.R.T., CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-05692) District Judge: Honorable Mia R. Perez ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 24, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 7, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Inmate James Jones appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm. I. On the morning of August 14, 2024, at the State Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Pennsylvania, Correctional Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) officers visited Jones in his housing cell, subjected him to a strip search, and ordered him to carry his mattress to the lower level for screening. While he transported his mattress, the officers searched his living quarters. Shortly after returning to his cell, Jones discovered that the CERT officers had removed two cases of his legal documents and discarded them in the housing unit’s trash bin, which he could see from his cell door. Jones called out to officers on the unit floor and asked them to retrieve his legal materials from the garbage, but they refused. Jones requested assistance from his Unit Manager, numerous corrections officers, and members of the cleaning crew—all refused to retrieve his documents from the bin. Jones initiated this action against Department of Corrections’ Commissioner Dr. Harry, Superintendent Terra, CERT officers, Chief Grievance Officer Kerri Moore, and anyone else that may have been involved, referring to them as “Defendants et al.” Jones sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities, alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and brought a claim of negligence against Terra. The District Court screened Jones’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed it with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and granted Jones leave 2 to amend his complaint within thirty days. In its subsequent order denying Jones’ motion for reconsideration, the District Court reiterated that he could file an amended complaint within thirty days or proceed with his original filing, but that if Jones opted to stand on his original complaint, it would “issue a final order dismissing the case.” Jones filed a notice of intent to stand on his original complaint. The District Court therefore dismissed all of Jones’ federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state law claim without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jones appealed.1 II. We agree with the District Court’s analysis. As an initial matter, the District Court properly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Jones’ official capacity claims against all defendants, who are all state officials, for monetary damages. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2020). The District Court’s dismissal of Jones’ individual capacity claims against Moore was also proper, as a prisoner does not have a free-standing right to an effective grievance process, and an officer’s 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order dismissing Jones’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) are governed by the same standard applicable to moti

Very Similar Similarity

David Joseph Gottorff v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Gunnison Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:gottorffvboardofcountycommissionersofthecountyofgunnisoncoloradono25sc185june17,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">David Joseph Gottorff</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Board of County Commissioners of the County of Gunnison Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC185</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="189" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="189" data-sentence-id="206" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_206"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA2229</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="247" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="247" data-sentence-id="263" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity

Roberto Carlo Delgado-Cruz v. The People of the State of Colorado

80% match
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jun 2025

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:delgado-cruzvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc181june16,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Roberto Carlo Delgado-Cruz</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC181</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="165" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="165" data-sentence-id="182" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_182"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22CA977</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="222" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="222" data-sentence-id="238" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

Very Similar Similarity