COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71150 CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON : : Relator : PETITION FOR WRIT OF : PROHIBITION -vs- : : CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF : COMMON PLEAS : : Respondent : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : OF DECISION : DECEMBER 4, 1996 JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS. : WRIT DENIED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For relator: Robert J. Sindyla, Assistant Prosecutor; Nicholas E. Phillips, Law Director; City of North Royalton, 7425 Royalton Road, North Royalton, Ohio, 44133. For court respondent: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Carol Shockley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Courts Tower - Eighth Floor, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113. For intervening-respondents: Thomas P. O'Donnell, Esq., McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A., Skylight Office Tower, Suite 700, 1660 West Second Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44113-1454. - 2 - JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J.: The City of North Royalton (hereinafter the "City" or "relator") is seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents, the Honorable Carl J. Character and/or the visiting Honorable William E. Mahon, from hearing an administrative appeal entitled Mark Staron, et al. v. City of North Royalton, et al., Common Pleas Case Number CV-309157. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition or alternatively moved for summary judgment and intervenor- respondents, Mark Staron, Pyramid Enterprises, Mike and Laurie Flis, and Marion Moore, moved for summary judgment. Relator filed a brief in opposition to both motions. For the reasons argued by the various respondents and for the reasons set forth below, we grant the motions of respondents and intervenor-respondents. In order to obtain the extraordinary writ of prohibition, relator had the burden of proving that respondents were about to exercise judicial authority, that the exercise of this power was unauthorized, and that they had no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law if the writ were denied. State ex rel. McKee v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 65, 320 N.E.2d 286, paragraph one of the syllabus. Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter can determine its own jurisdiction and a party challenging the jurisdiction of the court has an adequate remedy at law via appeal. State ex rel. Enyart v. O'Neill (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 646 N.E.2d 1110; Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective - 3 - Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48, 562 N.E.2d 125; State ex rel. Miller v. Court of Common Pleas (1949), 151 Ohio St. 397, 86 N.E.2d 464, paragraph three of the syllabus. Relator moved to dismiss the underlying action for lack of jurisdiction, but respondent Mahon denied the motion. There is no question in this case as to the general jurisdiction of the common pleas court to hear administrative appeals. See R.C. 2506.01; 2505.03. Consequently, absent a blatant lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondents, relator has an adequate remedy via appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the action below. See State ex rel. Ruessman v. Flanagan (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 464, 605 N.E.2d 31. Relator alleges in its Petition that respondents patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the administrative appeal because the intervenor-respondents, the appellants in the administrative appeal, did not file their original notice of appeal with the involved agency, the North Royalton Board of Zoning Appeals, as required by R.C. 2505.04. Relator alleges that the notice of appeal in the action below was only filed in the common pleas court and that copies of the notice of appeal were delivered to the North Royalton City Hall and the Building Department. The material attached to the Petition and offered by respondents herein raise doubts concerning relator's allegations. The Bonnie Speed Delivery employee testified in his affidavit that he filed a Notice of Appeal at the North Royalton Building Department with the - 4 - Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals who signed for it and stamped its receipt and that he also filed a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Council's office where he obtained a signed receipt. Counsel for appellants below averred in his affidavit that he hired Bonnie Speed Delivery to file the notice of appeal at the various administrative locations and that he separately transmitted copies by regular mail to constitute mere service of the documents. Cf. Hirt's Greenhouse, Inc. v. City of Strongsville (Sept. 18, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68374, unreported. Finally, counsel for appellants testified that the North Royalton Zoning Code does not provide specific requirements for the filing of a zoning appeal; that it was his belief that the secretary for the Board of Zoning Appeals was the appropriate person to receive filing of the notice of appeal on behalf of the Board; and that the Board's secretary had only one stamp that marks a document "received" with a date, rather than "filed" with a date. Based on these affidavits, we cannot conclude herein that respondents patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed. The common pleas court has basic statutory jurisdiction to hear administrative appeals and an appeal from respondent Mahon's denial of relator's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction provides an adequate remedy at law. - 5 - Accordingly, since we find no obvious lack of jurisdiction herein to warrant dispensing with relator's adequate remedy of appeal, the writ of prohibition is denied. Judgment for respondents. Costs to relator. SARA J. HARPER, J., and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR. .