qro-- 9 lf table ofcontents page nos. explanation of why this case is a case of public or great...

16
,, / ^-qChJ _(` ( El^q,,rdhCf4l/t"7 /,ff a.a-...,..y..«.,--..,^- /]^^^^ ^^ ^^^ supp-,F.IWnt . . L^.^nc6, ll^^tfi& ^ u " ^ ^ ^^nar ^ ^A^r' i- i,^ a^ O ``z^g'^X rC_^^a^^' ^ifl^ Cot°Ce C'-^ C. 1EIRK OF (Pt)ll( Pi!°AA4" J1OUf^T OF'4:9 5 0 ` J,^+ t-k,S J10rc-.ZL .t 1 ? t-l^ ^^2L, -^ ^ <- S'r^2 G.2 tC- t„ ( a C.r ^hv-e -2-c,a5 "D__..Jv^>'^S`^, / ct Olfi6- ^ .._.27 ati -'E/,e Tq^() c --^L C__. -F7r6 /-^- +!^ 14cf -e ?L " T Hd CIO1^C C- a ,.^^^ 2-5

Upload: others

Post on 02-May-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

,, / ^-qChJ _(` ( El^q,,rdhCf4l/t"7 /,ff

a.a-...,..y..«.,--..,^-

/]^^^^^^ ^^^

supp-,F.IWnt

. .L^.^nc6, ll^^tfi& ^ u"

^^ ^^nar ^ ^A^r' i-i,^ a^

O ``z^g'^X rC_^^a^^' ^ifl^ Cot°Ce C'-^

C. 1EIRK OF (Pt)ll(Pi!°AA4" J1OUf^T OF'4:9

50 `J,^+

t-k,S J10rc-.ZL

.t 1 ? t-l^ ^^2L,-^ ^ <- S'r^2 G.2 tC- t„ ( a C.r

^hv-e -2-c,a5 "D__..Jv^>'^S`^,

/

ct Olfi6- ^

.._.27 ati -'E/,e Tq^() c --^L C__.

-F7r6 /-^- +!^

14cf -e ?L " T

HdCIO1^C C- a ,.^^^ 2-5

Page 2: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

5•e1-)..(^:tstnh `3v1t'^-Oc_.

c ..-d.'I 1.4

: iA ^s-3 QNkA -- -

Xae

c%i- tGj cz

l' C09UC.5_1S.

Ttyn pet^l^C

„ iat _f^_ra^

f^.:1.^M

'' e5r_rj_"e,A. ij-)SisiS Gne C,F P-wn1-4 n'

1 ei>° tit .lLo_... _. A

Oi^ 2-420fJ9CLERK OF COUR7

L-SUPR^ME COURT.OE ®HI® _ I

;<^ C^^^`;'^ ^K t^PPi,^s. ^i1n^,z ^4S•,s. t'rl_^.5^_? _.^_._t^;arr,

P i v * ci^Y^d

^&4'(4r,y ^^ 'T'^i.b:__. "rtAY_c^^

ce36+>u c?^ 3i^.c(c _^

Dj^ r`j^`11^ t11t ^1i_I^

1__Fl.^{^^n i) .:;

rb•^_-^^^ti;n.^FCr^-_..._CCs,,_sl°._bF tS.pn^"\^

Page 3: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

Zn THt SuPre.+re CourZ ©F oV+;6

^81+'4s o^F^ ^`3^hc*^ .

eC2

R3-Lb-qns_t^.l_.^UC^J^S c+n. T

Qro-- 9 lF

Page 4: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

Table Of Contents

Page Nos.

Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great generalInterest and involves a substantial constitutional question ............................

Statement of the Case .. ..... .. ... .. . . .. ... ... .. ....... ... .. ... .. ..... .. ...... . .... ..... ..... 2

Statement of the Facts ...................................................................... 2

First Proposition of Law .................................................................... 3-5

Conclusion . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . ... 5

Certificate of Service\ ... .. ..... ... .. ... .. .......... ..... .... . ... .. ... .. ... .... ...... ... .. .. 5

rS^^^ If < .

Page 5: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

EXPLANATION OFGREAT WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF

GENERAL PUBLIC ORINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIALCONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

i hi•S is^ revicu^ see'^n5e i s ^^`^ _.<p n a• 4 cuk ^Gn Fo r ^^P (Cl:.7 O^ MAn^muv (^; hen

Ve.STtu^l Of 7reRC P^CnEYAt lnTCfPST ^t`i^efL S lo lJnAECi^ /icYtor) Vt^The

/ J 9 Fln Ade^uake t,o,edyC^Cc^+•n•RN CUvCS^ of' ^AW ^PYicWNtnc^ '^iu u ; R -}^

T-v,e Cuvt'k oF s hfls ^uYIS i-c^7^ ^c.^ I^UC' Gur^-C Os`' t^`I G/ nq^rn5('x TctL i R9 £o ft^ptc ^le Ce.t \tS tn. 'Tve id^^ p,-^ «ss P^ ^^^ s

^ tV' ^^ne., ^^cc'c"T C3 ^ N e-+^.15 ec„n, p: nn ^n^ R Cas6 Cts^^h^„°C

^tti(E.n cLe^a^)^ . -.

-^ ^Te- qa,n QLCcorA1'e.ASO^cA^ VLYC i'cs 0't2.GSiu+\ ^

l^rrtis Ct7urT ts OeediFd to Cevteus 1-re-lntcl.ibs w^tn en v^`Aex (iphty4lKnC

p&ra 14,e, C(xrre(x Yemedy `ro pvrsut; der^^^c^tur}o^ Fr hea re^ie^Me ^t

W^ 1e {\.e te.cvrd W tl cl^br^^sTCa<t ^4 a^ Gtu,t f?^ies g ri^PtTtt^^e R^IeS wav^r

aU n¢l igct w,4-b;,l4)os CCS.uStn.r^ rn A't"eT,at ,pYe,)' Uc cc _ ,-L`" ^C Ig,^^&-IlnritS

^ e8r^A52^

I 1 Tht Co ^Z of cx^^Can\s cJT'a,..trd ptfpg-ttces snc Tt^v. •ra etis ncu Pestz ^^nS

i o Ctvd RoIZ su Cn) k An ar(ev̂ 4,Ye ,+cmraly '&ink,.^ C Asff ! r.t0 V I*1 A^id,u ^^rr

S^^ id a^^ bee !orlr^^d i n-C'1 e cc^r-r c,f° aPp^Alt de txsio ^ ^rtu n ^^ To ^^,, ^Auie. 3t(to^.

Thts cax-,c ( s n e.e-ct f^or -the SAVe< oP;SV)coI^c S,ecurcry acT c>F Ici'7q ,

1-i lSO1 0 L)ns4^^^k ni - I ss^^ a-s -j ^, presaNr S 't n ct^"

I

Page 6: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

STATEMENT OF THE CASE I 1=An5

PP^ ttant j^/ $ /^Tlli L>e$ l^ ^ QCCU'(^1L^'kIQ'7^A1 ^C'.t'YCAI(\\ il4 -'^p Y-.,Pic

QeneF. s r^r^r^ f^PP^y1c^ ar^c^ ssLe dd^r i) t^^ee u k^ t1^e ^^^ures

(^P^^L^ee ^Cave- 6o 4^ec oti ct^ e luAS e1^5;^ie fzrr' RG-7%seme,),v

T1tie dacu>e^^yyi ^^ She Sco^^C ^^'ret U>AS ne^^t3c1 'iv Ftii^

n ^c>^r,^^ Cla>^, c,nel^s 1^,^ ^m^oloyee ^e^ ce^,e s^nco^,^ Sec`^

oF lal li , cl,c^^tI A 'PP CuCti^^C^ 'TO S v1,

^^rnirn c 1esS She had {ye r^^veste_c{ olutv^,e^^ti^ ^^ Sc^fu+i

(a e lle.^ ^ r^ ^'^ ^ C't^rrespe•nrAene,t^ ^sm 7 \ n f• ocvn,2^zA A^(' ^-vtinrvt' -^L.e.

1^e-^U2A'Ced CJ.OCumenTb^lD, SSV^T p2e^Eol ^^^1C r^ C'1,ca^-wD ci^^+ne'^

Ptrtin . N 6rv d vC tU "C4 C, tt fl'ZUrC c> F TY C Gla^ ^» ^^ in^ LS S u c S'Y\ etiY

f1^ecA Prese trGl ^cr 6encteu) ^1.e c^tscuw.e t.w ^te neeofaSC^ by 6rpattnna

SC^ S^.e Cc.n IudR^ in^rT TU inC^ Glcitw I^ qlso Jt fcns35.

(k1,^11Tn1S i^ httnd q('PVnn'C f'1O A wc^t t T\ne ^•rst DtStci^t

SeE1G^n^r nn Orcl(sr {'Rcm AvPffIee 'tD Q'-Oq'I^'ii nPp^\1^^r wtAV, reJue:;Te--ck ^nfbc-rncc^a,.

^e(C ^aR+iArd C}vl BA^e^ttnTC S^v^s WASni C^Mp^^e^{ - d^.^l ^^r^.^nr^ i2S;^CCS ^C

(.̀^rT 0^ hl^(^^n1s JrtG.nT(3cl flPP^I\ttS MDC^m Tz: e^4SeniSS- UJhZn "l^'trC Cc^AS ,1o

rulta 5 csn qPg&%\tes e.xicnsi^ c}FTt e-to FDle fv)swsf T,1\5 MCtcnA- Ctu,1 ^AtJ

CtX^p\iE'.f wAh CAUSLns Mrit'e4ra3 fTt`jv(J.ic.Fr "ro flPp$iln.tiC`S i:.-Ptic,n.T S:tNLG

ft(e6t1eC) I't't^`Tlon 'TV P^itYnIJS CvAS VTfer4.^ ocit Or Ttvn^ ^JCDU^sio4[',

flff11n,;T SovshT R Gcunsrdc.rn-%,o^-)

doe. FrDc^^ ^u-t eFfixts ru,W,

T'^ls fl PPi=rd Fot^OUos

exptcu„iAS -btie Abnor^,1

^ EktG,:r kt

Page 7: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

rircT PROPOSITION OF LAW

Ih5 Svni

g^ ^+es?

c^1Sw,^ssA`iTAcN66 j'U Tl,is eropoS,•lAen oF 1ryLJ ss qfVet^es {Y,arion Yp

CE'r4,+6`r 0). i\,4 C11ciTf..TS oF A&61e8 rnoTw..'(' Sc c^ShT clum..ss+a l Fn

+kt Wc,r Repl:+cwcvc., d^^..TO RD aN,,{"c\y^ns m9T<Pi' ^^1^t.e.rn-c^ tn}sPlacGmc.^

of (.'ivit ^^IC 3q6D.^,

()0(t.) t(1 OfeaFSNen To f`if1E11Yy.g f*1^ oTlc, Tp discniS^ $1 nc-6

+1,e C.ourT 6^ nP^3xl^ u.ceci t+„esr3 cr..,t-encs ^ ^;-a,,Y APP^IiCes

C^ Y aPPWtia„TS w^ r ^1ts tnsra^rOf 1 vt w iv'i tt c^,^ecco^,r,

6^ Cv^Yenrs o^ wPP^ltres v,orta^'to e^cs^lss wh+ch w,et iTS^tr n -7t1isCcr

'The Ccns+,a t;Jlo, ef t4,e SSWl^of obito Rrrlc.l'e

6t^-ma^06?5 bArK To +^,e disrslcr ccs,scS,

iV9 3 ^^(A)

CtWky SI-aYes + Ttie CooYts OF flePeAls ShAtl have oc}•,,al ^arisdt^^^^

t0 (Ylpno{amv.S AcTta+u . 'iV,CrCg (lD Yet u%rcr+cn< p^w' {nv-.T \Ave.

Cn rl Un elec\y+a'^ Clt S C $ro in s}.•\u4e

Yl^r 'T4.e ^cs cT c>F ^f^^\s ^AVe

ci n A Gteg

A MrA n ca rlmlyt A c;ctfln

sL^ ? p^nJ

. App e^wr

6 vA^Acs-<, Ts t u ^F^ts

^^T ©^ rv an ^S "l odgt^ b`! -t'4t GOar-c oft1pP^1 s' 1 S

vnle' 66me-Ay. A ffs'VAee c1.0esnT dUPoze -^ #^Ac,)r `tha-k 41.e

(^ UBti.A,1."C VVR„i A rtl h"T -^O 'i1Nl- YPn t^-w6(7) [4oC.L^mt,f-$ Of - 'CIn.C,

FtAOT" l^rS R^fu-v\e.-e, au'ty TO c^01vf- appa-rim,X 'r^neSe- re^^sr[^1

VULUvnerTS ^^jU^ ILr^C^n !^(^ ^^4C7^L°L "eJy ^UCS cinT T6 Co,i

R.v1^ S410) iS APp^+/tCes ^& F-co sg- ,

an5vr,^re oF Sec-c'on (i) CiearEy oaalS +` Svb^eC;^ -i-c { 4,e Scope o Fc lSehvery ^nrUVisions 0 F C v, R. dbC(3)

^1 owThe P`tct, n

B YS(f)l A pexSon whoc^aLm5

Page 8: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

fiv hAVe (A Pa+enA-kAl CAusU vF Ac.+{on r,'t.A`i F^\e A{ er,F{U ^n nb^e,.r+

clsSCauery As pYpv{cAe_el In gv\g , ^rsna ^^^ ^opp^ttn:^ ^oes ^r^

C'io, i K^k R 6(.P.^ Secxbn ^1J Zn ^ e(Ne,cAi cvti,e,r( I, T C:1t A-r^. RG it^.I S

I 6

FFt^T'it^S Y*tiAy a^y^-a{,n d1S^cvecy T^^flrc^^^+aV Q.^,,1 mAihe.d noTfriy,1e6w ^

t d ) W^tich t `a i^^leVAnT ^o 'c -- 'e. ^ iJ^, E. G^ YYL'Fl "^'^

F[1 l! C LILC.^(

(^8nd^nJ Ae'Cton

^61^n 4^P^^11^yriC STYYTes ^4,At S),ncg^ t tecc is _.c; 0 eTCI^A^Ae,tc^ ^^^^ a ^ L^) U^ t4^^ C,U,\ ^^1^5 a^ ^'raced_uYc r^oes ^ AFc'dy1nSTac,T YhAnD

IAmuS SeoCA5gy ^^vS "'l""^rE AcLLZwiY^ Re+ne^y oF b1 ^t^ zQiy vnv^ ^- ^^ \

n6(,u t^otinJn ^O Cto'1 f{u1.c c{S Luhn.cln ^'^tceS ^tf1D^^ n^ ; n -!}his ruie Sl,AN 6e CciS7cued -6o Rul+^)arcze, A PackY •}a 06A^e,.L.j

If1^^mn^un ^;-o*-ec{-ed 6y Ny yJriv( te5d c'eco5ot22c(^y l0.w,

AgGitA Slnrb fyppglVCe CCrn'CCKCS aF LTS ^C{T' V ^`LS+l^LbS ^N-Sf^ T

orQos6 -E1ct- r3pfrun,r&es„T hAVZz A nyt^T TO The clocum^ rwr{c, o^ •r'SPIePS{tte

CIcRY TD ftbuidc ({0c,t.'me,rtS 'EO fl?pb;ita^T VnAn C\bsi e^1L LlS 1stn aPQ\, w6i -rca 'Thls Lrt5'rAnT ge.Yvu SNeAr,,S#YiA APPeiice's MoTta- TO pcu,n,.KS,

SL) TO C°OC{JU.Sion ^,'iULt &A2. ',14^) i5 intlQyil<nb[a tb fi{'('

jeC6nS6 Sincg S41eeT -Eo 't4\2 n,copv aF dcacovacY oF Ciu,t gL1e. jbCCS)N clSCF)

fAVo(S APpffltnnT ,

fLxkhef A tr9f,tinmuS !S R CUi`iC Cp,i.,l•{GLnc^,^n^^e

Qf- &AtAnCt L)^ Q 3L ACT Whtcln 4e liLW SlpPc ally -Q,n'o,nS nS A rAu`ty ( ^Svt icn^

rRlrn An oFFicU -ffuSr or'Sia•nos^,. An UnderlynS Ac,^ tsr;T needsd -1-13 re^^s1R P1AndA,'acr,.

Nau^ ^sot^S }o haw ^^ Ctx,rY- oF qPPEa1sE' CC'ee.l i n 5 ^xvin-t{ J

RepGtkts rnsnon To ^7tsriss ie e. mc,sT vtecv ihe ACruAI CASg" clocdc.T 4P

(kf^6"t1AEe ^U1e ^ 5, a 6,lA^i 1Qui?- lPP 5 WAanT Comp(i& _ d (,c^c^ Stnct^ ^Le

CL^vc`C o^ fipfgAIS 5AUe Aclecesicu, ioeE6re +^Ve +tw,e R-Ame tn whc-h A

ofr'"- -}l)t A^?0keS !YloTia,'To fJGCmciShAdeK P(irecl i

i^ ^lv€s An AcivecSc PArT y to dAyS To ofppsc§ , THe oocKeT l.u;t, SGa; >

1^ frnLr11Ce F7, led raMcT[qn ©n ^ epTe m la,r d^ ^^ou<7 g-"e

CcxA^ oF Pl.C('0AS

Li

Page 9: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

I I

$^^^- d rt+rtrAv.cPr.^ Ac^.(eSwn or, ^e^raJ

^ R;ilDs „^^ r C^'l^e kh This i+^en^^ The-.:

ll̂d.d`T___^su^ec f^^^]le^xs___a^,t?^__ rr^ -$f^a-1Sc^s-^^o^^ rb Q^^t^s.

&r-°clrr, Z-a gl.kr,t(C tUAS._ AJD leaue -m

_-P-aark^^U^1-^-._..:..__.

-a'lia^[s_S^ crYr^---I _kK

B-1.CSLt' A-- ^^

CPFVtr.^a ^ .

fy_cn^_t1,ts -_ Cn /idqecs& P,

8-1,D`^CC3q A^ _._^' ^4an'rQ. h^-^---

Page 10: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

July 14, 2009

AMIRAH SULTAANA16410 SCOTTSDALE BLVDSHAKER HTS, OH 44120

Re: AT&T Pension Benefit Plan - Midwest Program, the "Pian"

Dear Amirah Sultaana:

Fidelity Service Center1-800-416-2363

International AccessDial AT&T Direct® access number,

then 800-416-2363TDD Service for the Hearing Impaired

1-888-343-0860

This letter is in response to your recent mailing to the Fidelity Service Center. We have received a copy of thenotarized "Petition For Writ of Mandamus" that you recently filed with the State of Ohio. Once a Court OrderedSubpoena is obtained, please forward the document to the Fidelity Service Center at the address listed below, ifneeded.

As defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), you have the right to file aformal claim, if you believe that any of the information on record regarding your pension benefits and/or AT&Tsavings plan account is incorrect. To make an official claim for benefits as outlined in your plan's Summary PlanDescription, you must complete and return all original pages of ihe Claim Initiation Form that was previously sentto you on May 27, 2009.

The Spread Sheet for Final Calculation Version 022 is not required in order to file a claim against the Plan. FinalCalculation Version 022 was completed by the prior record keeper and was provided to Fidelity at conversion.Since Fidelity did not complete this calculation, details canriot be provided. Fidelity Investments was only providedwith tt e Accrued Benefit amount and the Lump Sum amount that was paid out In 2001, and not the actual detailsof this calculation.

If you have any questions, please call the Fidelity Service Center toli-free at 1-800-416-2363, Monday throughFriday (excluding New York Stock Exchange holidays), between 8:30 a.m, and Midnight, Eastern Time to speakwith a service associate. From outside the U.S., dial your country's toll-free AT&T Direct access number thenenter800-416-2363. In the U.S., call 1-800-331-1140 to obtain AT&T Direct access numbers. From anywhere inthe world, access numbers are available online at www.att.com/traveler or from your local operator.

Sincerely,

Fidelity Service CenterPO Box 770003Cincinnati, OH 45277-0070

Page 11: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

IBxkv6^T ^

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Appeltant/plaintiff is a pro se litigant seeking discovery of docurnentation of records and

caleulations related to her retirement account atid recovery efforts by the plan administration

relative to overpayment of benefits to the Appellant/plaintiff.

In written conununications, as attached to Appellant/plaintifPs request for writ, she was

advised that the documentationlcalculations sought from Appellee/defendant was completed by

the prior record keeper. The detailed information sought is not in the possession of this party and

should be sought from the prior record keeper, not Fidelity. The "version 022" information

sought is not in Fidelity's possession. Fidelity has repeatedly provided to Appellant/plaintiff the

documentation and calculations of her benefits. (See attached composite exhibit "A", redacted to

protect personal and financial information from disclosure.)

The Appellant seeks a writ by this court with no underlying matter. Furtlier, the plaintiff

possesses remedies at law pursuant to Civ. R. 34(D) for which this writ is urmecessary. As such,

Appellant/plaintiff's request fo wzit should be denied.

ohn F. Bodie, Jr. (005 '297)LC

(419) 249-7151 FacsimileE-Mail: hodie a inarsh_all-melliorn.comAttorney for Defendant/Appellec,Fidelity Linploycr Services Company,L.L.C.

Four SeaGate, 8lh FlooToledo, Ohio 43604(419) 249-7100

Marshall & Melhorn,

Page 12: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

Attachment not scanned

Page 13: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

t atr^cia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts rage i or 2,

Directions ( Policies I Siten

You Are Not Currently Lo

A Services A D

incinnati, OH 45202000 Main Street

Hamilton County Courthou!

Case SummaryCase C

Case Number: C 0900575Case History

Case Caption:

Judge:

STATE OF OHIO EX REL AMIRAH SULTAANA vs. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS

Unavailable

Case Scheduie

Case Dacunien

Docunierit Req

Filed Date: 8117/2009Party/Attorney I

Case Type:

Total Deposits:

A109 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PETITION - TAXED IN COSTS.

$ 100.00 Credit

Certified fvtail S,New Case Seai

New Name Sea

Total Costs: $ 94.00 Add Case to M?

Case Ei[story

Doc Image# Date Description Amoi

.rl^ 10128/2009RELATOR'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO RELATOR'S

r 11^ 10/2812009

RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WITH NOTICE ALERT

NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALL

°L7 10/28/2009

PARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COSTS PAID BY AND CHECK ISSUED TO: STATE OF OHIO EX REL 01610/1912009 AMIRAH SULTAANA.

R,

rol

10/19/2009

10/14/2009

DEFT-APPELLEE, FIDELITY EMPLOYER SERVICES LLC'S OPPOSITIONTO PLTF-CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 26

°L. 1016/2009

(B) (FINDING OF FACT REQUEST)

MOTION TO LEAVE TO CORRECT/CHANGE RESPONDENTS NAME

L°7. 10/6/2009MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME WITHMOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

°U. 10/6/2009 RELATOR'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS

f 11) 10I5/2009 MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFT-APPELLEE FIDELITY INVESTMENTS

913012009NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALL

9/30/2009

PARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

9/30/2009ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

9/30/2009ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND/OR

9/22/2009

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFT/APPELLEE, FIEDLITY INVESTMENTS(SIC)

http://www.courtelerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber=C 0900575 11/12/2009

Page 14: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

'Patric a M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 2 of 2

9/2212009 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/1412009 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

(2) 8124/2009ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OFMANDAMUS AND SUMMONS DELIVERED TO FIDELITY INVESTMENTSON 08/19/09, FILED. [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0463 9993]

8 8/17/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO FIDELITY INVESTMENTS

8/17/2009 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO FIDELITY INVESTMENTS[CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0463 99931

8/1712009 ISSUE DESK- DEPOSIT BYAMIRAH L SULTAANA 100.C

fol 8/17/2009 PETITION IN MANDAMUS FILED

8/17/2009 TAXED IN COSTS - FILING STATE OF OHIO EX REL AMIRAH SULTAANA 0.01

About the Clerk I FAQ I Links I Directions I Policies ( Cont'act Us I Site Map

Alternate languages: Deutsch I Espan"ol ( Francais ( Italiano

© 2009 Patricla M. Clancy, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. All rights reserved.

http://www.eourtelerk.org/aase_summary.asp?sec=history&easenumber=C 0900575 11/12/2009

Page 15: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUN I.'Y, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. CASE NO. C-o9o575AMIRAH SULTAANA,

Relator,

vs. ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FORDEFAULT JUDGMENT AND/ORSUMMARY JUDGMENT ANDGRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS,

Respondent.

This cause came on to be considered upon the petition for writ of mandamus,

the respondent's motion to extend time, the relator's motion for default judgment

and/or summary judgment, and the respondent's motion to dismiss.

The Court finds that the motio',^ to,dismiss is well taken and is granted. The

requisites for mandamus are well est,ablished: (1) the relator must have a clear, legal

right to the requested relief, (:_) fhe responder.t must have a clear, legal duty to

perform the requested relief and (3)`-there must be no adequate remedy at law.

The relator's motion for default judgment and/or sunrmary judgment is not

well taken and is overruled.

To The Clerk:

Enter upor^.the Journal of the Court on SEP 3 0 2009 per order of the court.r •_ ,.

By: (Copies sent to all counsel)

'State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus (1989), 33 Ohio.St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914.

Page 16: Qro-- 9 lF Table OfContents Page Nos. Explanation of why this case is a case of public or great general Interest and involves a substantial constitutional question

IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIRSTAPPET.LAFE DISTRICT OF OIITO

EIAMILTON COIIN7.'Y, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. CASE NO. C-o9o575AMIRAH SULTAANA,

Relator,

VS.

FIDELITY iNVESTNIENfS,

Respondent.

ENTRY OVERRULING MOTIONFOR RECONSIDERATION

This cause came on to be considered upon the motion of the petitioner for

reconsideration and upon the memorandum in opposition.

The Court finds that the motion is not well taken and is overruled. The

petition did not establish the requisites for mandamus, which include: (i) the relator

must have a clear, legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a

clear, legal duty to perForm the requested relief and (g) there must he no adequate

remedy at law. 4

All other motions are overruled as moot.

To The Clerk: OCT 2 8 2009Enter upon We Journal of the Court on per order of the court.

Ey; ^"/`f-^ ---- -41 (Copies sent to all counsel)Presiding Ju ge

^N9D56 4 2696i91 State ex rel, tVey v. Niehau.s (1987), 33 Ohio St3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914.