http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0...4-ohio-7079.pdf

2004-2106. Moss v. Moyer.

On Petition to Contest Election. This cause originated in this court on the filing of
a petition to contest an election under R.C. 3515.08 et seq. The court has
previously acknowledged the applicability of a Civ.R. 12(B )(6) dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in an election contest
case. In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Election Held May 4, 1999 for
Nomination of Clerk, Youngstown Municipal Court (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 118, 717
N.E.2d 701. Normally, minimal notice pleading is all that is required to withstand
dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B )(6). Id. at 120, 717 N.E.2d 701. Here, however, the
contestors' claims are based primarily on fraud and mistake. Therefore, the
contestors must state the "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake * * * with
particularity." Civ.R. 9(B ). Accordingly, upon review of contestors' petition,

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to my authority under R.C. 3515.11 to control
and direct this election contest proceeding, that the contestors shall show cause by
January 7, 2005 why their petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not allege the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with particularity. Contestees may file
a memorandum in response on or before January 14, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the filing of an answer by the contestees
and any discovery, including depositions, subpoenas, and requests for production
of documents, shall be, and hereby are, stayed pending resolution of
this preliminary issue.

O'Connor, J., in Chambers.

What does this pertain to?

Is this a dismissal of the motion that asked for expedited emergency and the judge ordered that a memo be submitted by Dec 28?

Sounds like the "show me the money" ruling. If there's evidence of fraud, it needs to be shown to the court for the case to continue.

Yes. Exactly. This is the judges nicey, nicey way of saying (what would actually be said in chambers to attorneys): don't you even think of showing up in my courtroom without any evidence.

It did make a brief mention also to showing a claim upon which relief may be granted. This would mean that they have to show evidence as well as showing that there is actually a claim that the court can realistically do something about.

For example, if you took someone to court for running over and killing your pet fish and you had no evidence other than "I know he did it." and your requested relief was that your fish be brought back to life, your case would likely be dismissed, except in North Dakota, but they do things a little differently there.