On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Julia Rielinger filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition and mandamus with an emergency motion for an alternative writ and stay against Judge Nancy A. Russo of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Rielinger’s action seeks extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court of Ohio to halt what she alleges are ongoing actions by Judge Russo taken without jurisdiction and in violation of her due process rights.
Rielinger, a New Hampshire resident, claims the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas issued orders in Case No. CV 24-991073 and related proceedings that have aggrieved her. She asserts the Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction in mandamus and prohibition, as per the Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, 2(B)(1)(b), and that the court may issue an alternative writ and stay proceedings.
Rielinger contends she lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to prevent the imminent and continuing harm caused by Judge Russo’s orders, which she claims were entered without personal jurisdiction and proper notice. She highlights that the Eighth District Court of Appeals already denied her petition for a writ of prohibition on June 6, 2025, which she argues demonstrates the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The complaint states that Judge Russo scheduled an examination hearing for September 3, 2025, despite the alleged lack of personal jurisdiction and proper notice. Rielinger argues this imminent proceeding underscores the urgency of her action and renders any argument of laches inapplicable.
Rielinger alleges the trial court repeatedly proceeded and issued orders while lacking personal jurisdiction over her due to improper service and the use of an incorrect address, despite her efforts to correct the address. She claims that on April 18, 2024, the trial court entered a vexatious litigator declaration against her without affording a hearing or proper notice, rendering the order void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and due process.
Furthermore, Rielinger asserts that on June 4, 2025, the court conducted a sanction hearing and took adverse action without providing her notice at her correct address and without ensuring jurisdiction. She also claims that on June 23, 2025, the court jailed her in connection with the same underlying matters, despite her jurisdictional objections and service defects. According to the complaint, the court and opposing party continued to file and serve motions to the wrong address even after Rielinger alerted the court and sought correction, and her filings were either struck or ignored.
Rielinger seeks a writ of prohibition preventing Judge Russo from exercising further judicial power in the underlying matter unless valid personal jurisdiction exists and due process is afforded. She also seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Russo to vacate the April 18, 2024, vexatious-litigant declaration, the November 13, 2024 sanction, the June 4, 2025, sanctions-related orders, and the June 23, 2025, contempt/jailing order, and to refrain from proceeding with the September 3, 2025, examination hearing. She is also asking the court to immediately issue an alternative writ and stay, halting all proceedings and enforcement against her in the underlying case.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
