Appeals court rejects woman's lawsuit

The next hearing in the Moadus lawsuit is set for May 17.
By ED RUNYAN
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
WARREN -- One prong of a two-prong effort to stop speed cameras in Girard has been knocked down by the 11th District Court of Appeals.
A class-action lawsuit filed by Julie Sferra of Niles in October asked the court to stop all hearings involving the camera. The request was contained in a motion for an alternative writ of prohibition.
On Monday, the court denied her request, essentially saying the court does not have jurisdiction over the type of claims Sferra brought. Attys. David Betras and Brian P. Kish filed the suit.
Jerry Lambert, Girard's safety-service director, said his understanding of the ruling is that it has no effect on what the city is doing, which is to follow the orders of Judge John H. Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court on how it operates the traffic camera.
In mid-January, Judge Stuard ordered that the city could continue to operate the cameras but that all fines collected from citations issued by the camera be put into an interest-bearing escrow account.
Those orders came in a hearing on a class-action lawsuit filed in August in common pleas court by Girard Councilman Dan Moadus.
Moadus' suit is trying to overturn the ordinance the city enacted that gives the city authority to use cameras to catch speeders. Those cited are sent tickets in the mail but aren't assessed points on their licenses.
Here's the argument
Moadus' attorney, Jim Denney, has said the city, in creating the camera legislation, has ignored stipulations set by the state for handling speeders by making speeding a civil offense. He said the system takes due process away from those cited.
The appeals court ruling in the Sferra case states that a writ of prohibition asks that a higher court command a lower court to stop abusing its basic judicial power.
Carrie Dunn, a lawyer representing Girard, explained that such a legal maneuver is considered an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in limited situations.
The ruling states that the intention of the Sferra suit was to have every aspect of the city's traffic ordinance declared unconstitutional so that the city cannot use any type of camera system to detect speeding violations. Such an attack on the ordinance is actually contesting the city's right to enact a law, which is a legislative act, not a judicial act.
The basic purpose of a writ of prohibition is to determine whether a judicial officer is properly exercising his jurisdiction in a specific case, the ruling states.
A hearing on motions to be filed by the city and Moadus is set for May 17 in Judge Stuard's courtroom.
Atty. Betras did not return a call seeking comment.