Lendmark Seeks Writs Against Elyria Judges, Clerk

On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, Lendmark Financial Services filed a complaint for Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus with the Supreme Court of Ohio against Judges Gary C. Bennett and Robert C. White, Magistrate Richard K. Schwartz, and Clerk of Courts Eric J. Rothgery, all of the Elyria Municipal Court.

Lendmark, a financial institution operating under Ohio’s Consumer Installment Loan Act, alleges that the Judicial Respondents (Judges Bennett and White, and Magistrate Schwartz) have exceeded their judicial authority in four active cases pending in the Elyria Municipal Court. These cases are Lendmark Financial Services, LLC V. Jeremiah Jackson et al. (Case No. 2025CVF00143), Lendmark Financial Services, LLC V. Zaneta Heifetz (Case No. 2024CVF03763), Lendmark Financial Services, LLC v. Matthew Laslo (Case No. 2024CVF03930), and Lendmark Financial Services, LLC v. Jerediah Cruz (Case No. 2024CVF04048).

The central issue revolves around Lendmark’s filing of Notices of Dismissal without Prejudice, pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 41(A)(1)(a), in these cases. Lendmark contends that upon filing these notices, the court was divested of jurisdiction, but the Judicial Respondents continued to exercise authority over the cases.

Lendmark seeks a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the Judicial Respondents from further adjudicating the cases. They claim the judges interfered with the Clerk Respondent’s duties by preventing the 41(A) Notices from being placed on the dockets, interfering with his duties under R.C. § 1901.31(E), and requiring the cases to proceed to trial despite the filed notices.

Additionally, Lendmark seeks a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Judicial Respondents to amend or vacate Elyria Loc. R. 11(A)(7), which Lendmark argues conflicts with the plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss a case without prejudice. They also want the court to “approve” the 41(A) Notices and direct the Clerk to accurately record them.

The complaint also targets Clerk Respondent Eric J. Rothgery, alleging violations of Ohio’s Sunshine Laws and failure to fulfill legal duties under R.C. § 1901.31(E). Lendmark claims the Clerk intentionally deleted three of the four 41(A) Notices from the dockets, failing to maintain accurate court records.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.