On Wednesday, October 22, 2025, Leonard H. Slodov filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court against Judge Eileen A. Gallagher of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Slodov, representing himself pro se, alleges that Judge Gallagher failed to properly enforce App.R. 18(C) regarding consequences for the appellee’s failure to file a brief in a timely manner.

The case originates from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. CVI007589. Slodov’s complaint centers on Judge Gallagher’s decisions on September 2, October 2, and October 14, 2025, where she denied Slodov’s motions to enforce consequences against the appellee for twice failing to file an appellee’s brief or otherwise defend the appeal.

Slodov’s motion stems from the appellee’s failure to meet the initial August 8, 2025 deadline for filing its brief. After missing this deadline, the appellee filed a motion for leave to file its brief, which was granted with a 30-day extension until September 22, 2025. However, the appellee again failed to file a brief by the extended deadline. Slodov argues that these failures should trigger the consequences outlined in App.R. 18(C).

Slodov is seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Gallagher to vacate her previous decisions, order that the appellee not be heard at oral argument, and accept the appellant’s brief’s facts and issues as correct, potentially leading to a reversal of the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, Slodov seeks to have the appellee and its principal attorney, Steven M. Ott, held in contempt of court and fined $6,000 plus interest for filing a frivolous motion.

Slodov contends that App.R. 18(C) clearly states that if an appellee fails to file a brief within the allotted time, they should not be heard at oral argument, and the court may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct. He argues that Judge Gallagher’s decisions contradict this rule.

Slodov asserts he has no other adequate remedy at law and that a jurisdictional appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court would likely be unsuccessful. He maintains that the enforcement of App.R. 18(C) is of general interest to all appeals in Ohio.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.