Motion No.

NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Appeals

MOTION FOR...
June 2, 2025 12:59

By: KENNETH D. MYERS 0053655

Confirmation Nbr. 3512372

STATE EX REL. LATEEK SHABAZZ CA25 115185

Judge:
SANDRA MORGAN

Pages Filed: 16

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 IN THE EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE EX REL. ) Case No.: CA-25-115185

LATEEK SHABAZZ,
)

Relator, )

)
-vs-
)

SANDRA MORGAN, )

) ORIGINAL ACTION FOR A

Respondent. WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
)

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY OR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF QUO

WARRANTO AND EXPEDITED DETERMINATION, AND MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF RELATOR’S PETITION AND IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MOTION

KENNETH D. MYERS [0053655]

6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 241-3900
(440) 498-8239 Fax
[email protected]

Counsel for Relator

Lateek Shabazz

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY OR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF
QUO WARRANTO AND EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

Relator Lateek Shabazz, the duly-appointed President of the East Cleveland City Council,

moves the Court to grant a peremptory or an alternative writ of quo warraanto immediately

declaring that Relator, Lateek Shabazz, and not Respondent, Sandra Morgan, is the Mayor of the

City of East Cleveland.

As the Memorandum below shows, Respondent Morgan was appointed as Interim Mayor

by the Cuyahoga County Probate Court pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 3.16 after then-

Mayor Brandon King was suspended by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the

Ohio Supreme Court, also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.16.

However, that appointment as Interim Mayor ended on May 29, 2025 when Brandon

King was convicted of felonies, including theft in office, by a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas

Court jury. Pursuant to O.R.C. 3.16, Respondent’s appointment as Interim Mayor concluded on

May 29, 2025 because Brandon King’s conviction created a vacancy in the office of mayor, and

pursuant to the East Cleveland Charter, the President of City Council is the first in the line of

succession in the event the mayor is removed from office.

In a Petition for Quo Warranto, which is being filed simultaneously, Relator seeks a writ

of quo warranto declaring that Respondent Sandra Morgan is not entitled to hold the office of

Interim Mayor or Mayor and that Relator Lateek Shabazz, the President of East Cleveland City

Council, as the rightful Mayor of East Cleveland and is legally entitled to hold that office.

This motion seeks a peremptory or alternative writ and expedited determination;

-1-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 immediacy is needed because Relator is the proper mayor pursuant to Section 114 of the East

Cleveland Charter, yet Respondent continues to improperly occupy the office and hold herself

out as Interim Mayor or Mayor and refuses to relinquish the office. Respondent’s improper

usurpation of the office of mayor is causing chaos and confusion among city leaders and

residents, and pursuant to the Charter, the line of succession when the mayor is removed from

office is self-executing. As the pertinent facts are uncontroverted and it appears beyond doubt

that Relator is entitled to the requested relief sought, a peremptory writ should be granted. State

ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2007). A quick decision by

this Court will settle the issue.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Kenneth D. Myers
KENNETH D. MYERS [0053655]
6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 241-3900
(440) 498-8239 Fax
[email protected]

Counsel for Relator

Lateek Shabazz

-2-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

On October 10, 2024, Brandon King, the Mayor of East Cleveland, Ohio, was indicted by

a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on two counts of Theft in Office (R.C. 2921.41(A)(1)), fourth

degree felonies; two counts of Having an Unlawful Interest in a Public Contract (R.C.

2921.42(A)(1), also fourth degree felonies; and eight misdemeanor counts, including two counts

of Having an Unlawful Interest in a Public Contract (R.C. 2921.42(A)(1)), first degree

misdemeanors; four counts of Representation by Public Official or Employee (R.C.

102.03(D)&(E), first degree misdemeanors; one count of Filing a False Disclosure Statement

(R.C. 102.02(D), a first degree misdemeanor, and one count of Soliciting Improper

Compensation (R.C. 2921.43(A)(1), a first degree misdemeanor.

Ohio Revised Code Section 3.16 sets forth the procedure for suspending an elected

official from office during the period of time when that official is under criminal indictment.

The statute calls for the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court to appoint a Special

Commission, composed of three retired judges, to determine whether the indicted official’s

“...administration of, or conduct in the performance of the duties of, the official’s office, as

covered by the charges, adversely affects the functioning of that office or adversely affects the

rights and interests of the public and, as a result, whether the public official should be suspended

from office.” O.R.C. 3.16(C)(2).

On October 10, 2024, the same date as the indictments of Mayor King, Cuyahoga County

-3-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 Prosecutor Michael C. O’Malley initiated the process, pursuant to O.R.C. Section 3.16, for

suspending Mayor King from office.

On November 4, 2024, the Chief Justice established a Special Commission, composed of

three retired judges.

On January 28, 2025, the Special Commission issued its Final Determination, officially

suspending Mayor King from office pending the outcome of his criminal charges.

Pursuant to the statute, if a public official is suspended, the Probate Court in the county in

which the public official serves is to appoint an interim replacement “to perform the suspended

public official’s duties” “[f]or the duration of the public official’s suspension.”. O.R.C.

3.16(E)(4), emphasis added.

On February 28, 2025, Judge Anthony Russo of the Cuyahoga County Probate Court

appointed Respondent Sandra Morgan as Interim Mayor.

On May 29, 2025, Brandon King was convicted of one count of theft if office (F-4), two

felony counts of having an unlawful interest ina public contract (F-4), and seven misdemeanor

counts, all concerning his conduct while in office.

On May 29, 2025, Respondent Morgan was informed by Relator, through legal counsel,

that at the time Brandon King was found guilty, her tenure as Interim Mayor ended and she was

asked to step aside and participate in an orderly transition from herself as Interim Mayor to

Relator Shabazz as Mayor. She refused to relinquish the office. See correspondence, attached to

Petition as Exhibit B; see also, Affidavit of Lateek Shabazz, attached to Petition as Exhibit C.

Despite having been asked to step aside pursuant to Section 114 of the East Cleveland

Charter, Respondent Morgan continues to unlawfully hold herself out to be Interim Mayor (a

-4-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 position that no longer exists as of May 29, 2025) or Mayor, thus usurping the office of mayor.

O.R.C. 2961.01 states that “a person against whom a verdict or finding of guilt for

committing a felony under any law [of this or any other state] is returned, unless the plea, verdict

or finding is reversed or annulled, is incompetent to be an elector or juror or to hold an office of

honor, trust or profit.” O.R.C. 2961.01(A)(1).

O.R.C. 2921.41, pertaining to theft in office, states, in pertinent part:

O.R.C. 2921.41(C)(1) A public official or party official

who pleads guilty to theft in office and who whose plea is accepted
by the court or a public official or party official against whom a
verdict or finding of guilt for committing theft in office is returned
is forever disqualified from holding any public office, employment,
or position of trust in this state.

For purposes of being disqualified from holding public office, only a determination of

guilt is necessary, not sentencing or any post-trial determinations. O.R.C. 2921.41(C)(1); State

ex rel. Gains v. Hill, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1820 (7th Dist. App., 1998) at 6, citing State ex rel.

Watkins v. Fiorenzo (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 259,260.

O.R.C. 3.16 has its own sunset provision.

“If the office of the suspended public official becomes vacant during the period of

suspension, a public official shall be appointed or elected to fill such vacancy as provided by

law.” O.R.C. 3.16(E)(5).

The “as provided by law” clause in O.R.C. 3.16 refers to the East Cleveland Charter,

which sets forth a self-executing line of succession when there is a vacancy in the mayor’s office

caused by the mayor’s removal:

-5-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 East Cleveland Charter Section 114: Vacancy

During the time when the Mayor is absent from the city, or is
otherwise not accessible, or is temporarily unable for any cause to
perform his or her duties, the order of succession as Acting Mayor
shall be as follows: Director of Finance, Director of Law, and the
Director of Public Service. In the case of death, resignation,
removal or long-term absence of the Mayor, the order of
succession as Mayor shall be as follows: President of Council,
Vice President of Council and ranking Council member based
upon aggregate years of service or, in the event of equal years of
service, aggregate votes received during all successful elections,
except in the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor
and there exists a Mayor-elect who has not yet assumed such
office, then, in that event, the person so elected to the office of
Mayor shall become Mayor for the unexpired term and for the full
term for which such person was elected. The successor shall serve
as Mayor until the successor for the remainder of the unexpired
term is elected at the first regular municipal election, if such
elections is held more than 120 days after the vacancy shall have
occurred. Otherwise, he or she shall serve for the unexpired term.

East Cleveland Charter, Section 114, attached to Petition as

Exhibit A

The East Cleveland Charter’s provision for filling a vacancy in the mayor’s office

prevails over any other state statutory law pursuant to the Home Rule provision of the Ohio

Constitution (see below).

This lawsuit and this motion seek the following orders from this court 1) an order

acknowledging that Relator is Mayor, effective May 29, 2025, pursuant to the self-executing

terms of Section 114 of the East Cleveland Charter; and declaring that Respondent’s tenure as

Interim Mayor concluded effective May 29, 2025; 2) an order declaring that Respondent is not

Interim Mayor or Mayor effective May 29, 2025 and prohibiting Respondent from holding

herself out to be Interim Mayor or Mayor or taking any actions under the guise of being Interim

-6-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 Mayor or Mayor; and 3) an order declaring null and void and vacating any decisions or orders

made by Respondent from May 29, 2025 to the date of this Court’s order.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Home Rule

Section 7, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution provides that “[a]ny municipality may

frame and adopt or amend a charter for its government and may, subject to the provisions of

section 3 of this article, exercise thereunder all powers of local self-government.”

Home Rule gives municipalities a sovereignty over matters of local government. In such

matters, if a provision of a municipal charter conflicts with state law, the charter provisions will

prevail. State ex rel. Bardo v. Lyndhurst, 37 Ohio St. 3d 106, 108-109 (1988), citing State ex rel.

Devine v. Hoermle, 168 Ohio St. 461 (1959), and State ex rel. Allison v. Jones, 170 Ohio St. 323

(1960); see also State ex rel. Lightfield v. Indian Hill, 69 Ohio St.3d 441, 442 (1994), cited in

Kanter v. City of Cleveland Heights, 2017-Ohio-1038 at P15 (8th Dist. App., 2015).

The words “as are not in conflict with general laws” in Section 3, Article XVIII of the

Ohio Constitution, have been universally construed to place a limitation on a municipality’s

power to “adopt and enforce...local police, sanitary and other similar regulations,” but not on the

power of local self-government. Hills & Dales, Inc. v. Wooster, 4 Ohio App. 3d 240, 242 (9th

Dist. App., 1982), citing State ex rel Canada v. Phillips, 168 Ohio St. 191 (1958). “Police

powers” encompass the areas of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Hills & Dales

at id.

-7-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 In Mendenhall v. Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (2008), the Ohio Supreme Court explained

that courts use a three-part test to evaluate claims that a municipality has exceeded its powers

under the Home Rule Amendment. First, courts must determine if the ordinance is an exercise of

the city’s “police power,” rather than of local self-government. Id. at P 17, citing City of Canton

v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 at P9 (2002). “If an allegedly conflicting city ordinance relates solely

to self-government, the analysis stops, because the Constitution authorizes a municipality to

exercise all powers of local self-government within its jurisdiction.” Id. at P18, quoting Am.Fin.

Servs. Ass’n v. City of Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 170 at P23 (2006).

In State ex rel. Branch v. Pitts, 2018-Ohio-1184 (8th Dist. App., 2018), the question was

whether an East Cleveland Charter provision relating to the appointment of vacant City Council

seats controlled over a state statute that called for a different method of appointing a new

Council-member. This Court held: “The right to determine who may fill a vacancy on Council

relates to self-government and does not involve an exercise of any police power. Therefore, our

analysis of whether the Charter or R.C. 731.43 controls ends, and we find that Section 100 of the

Charter must be employed to fill any vacancy that exists in the Council. Simply stated, the

charter provision controls over the state statute.” Branch v. Pitts, supra at P13.

So, too, with filling a mayoral vacancy.

East Cleveland Charter Section 114: Vacancy

During the time when the Mayor is absent from the city, or is otherwise not
accessible, or is temporarily unable for any cause to perform his or her duties, the
order of succession as Acting Mayor shall be as follows: Director of Finance,
Director of Law, and the Director of Public Service. In the case of death,
resignation, removal or long-term absence of the Mayor, the order of succession

-8-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 as Mayor shall be as follows: President of Council, Vice President of Council
and ranking Council member based upon aggregate years of service or, in the
event of equal years of service, aggregate votes received during all successful
elections, except in the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor and
there exists a Mayor-elect who has not yet assumed such office, then, in that
event, the person so elected to the office of Mayor shall become Mayor for the
unexpired term and for the full term for which such person was elected. The
successor shall serve as Mayor until the successor for the remainder of the
unexpired term is elected at the first regular municipal election, if such elections is
held more than 120 days after the vacancy shall have occurred. Otherwise, he or
she shall serve for the unexpired term.

East Cleveland Charter, Section 114, emphasis added.

Thus, once a mayor is removed from office, the President of City Council becomes

mayor. There is no dispute that as of his conviction on May 29, 2025, Brandon King was

removed from office by virtue of O.R.C. 2961.01 and O.R.C. 2921.41(C)(1)..

Even though O.R.C. 3.16 dictates the procedures by which the mayor is suspended from

office, the procedures of that statute, by the statute’s own terms, end when the public official’s

suspension ends. If a public official is suspended, the Probate Court in the county in which the

public official serves appoints an interim replacement “to perform the suspended public official’s

duties” “[f]or the duration of the public official’s suspension.”. O.R.C. 3.16(E)(4), emphasis

added.

“If the office of the suspended public official becomes vacant during the period of

suspension, a public official shall be appointed or elected to fill such vacancy as provided by

law.” O.R.C. 3.16(E)(5).

In this case, Brandon King was suspended from office, his interim replacement

(Respondent Sandra Morgan) was appointed by the Probate Court “for the duration of [King]’s

-9-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 suspension,” and the office became vacant when King was found guilty. At that point, he was

immediately and automatically removed from office, creating a vacancy the remedy for which is

provided in Section 114 of the East Cleveland Charter, i.e., the filling of the vacancy by the City

Council President.

Because the appointment by the Probate Court only lasts “for the duration of the

suspension,” and because the line of succession in the Charter is self-executing, Respondent has

no authority to continue to hold the office as Interim Mayor, and no authority to hold the office as

Mayor. Respondent is unlawfully holding the office of Mayor. Respondent, who swore an oath

to uphold the laws of the United States, the state of Ohio and the City of East Cleveland, cannot

ignore the dictates of the Charter.

Nor can the City of East Cleveland have two mayors; one who was temporarily appointed

as Interim Mayor, and the other who, pursuant to the Charter, becomes Mayor at the time there is

a vacancy in the mayor’s office by virtue of the then-mayor being removed. Pursuant to Home

Rule, the Charter controls and the Charter dictates that the City Council President becomes

mayor in the event of the removal of the elected mayor.

The Charter’s Vacancy provisions are self-executing; when the mayor is removed, the

first in line is the City Council President, who should be sworn in and take office immediately

upon the vacancy, so that there is no time lag between the removed mayor leaving and the new

mayor taking over. That is why there is no language in the Charter setting forth any additional

procedures in the event of a vacancy. The fact that the statute directs the Probate Court to

appoint an interim mayor and allows the mayor to keep his title and pay while suspended does

not change the basic fact that the Charter controls who becomes mayor when the suspension of

-10-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 the mayor is over, as in this case.

Quo Warranto

Ohio Revised Code Section 2733 sets forth the contours of quo warranto:

O.R.C. 2733.01 Proceedings against a person.

A civil action in quo warranto may be brought in the name of the

state:
(A) Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds
or exercises a public office, civil or military, or a franchise, within
this state, or an office in a corporation created by the authority of
this state;

O.R.C. 2733.06 Usurpation of office.

A person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held

and exercised by another may bring an action therefor by himself
or an attorney at law, upon giving security for costs.

O.R.C. 2733.08 Petition against person for usurpation of office.

When an action in quo warranto is brought against a person for

usurping an office, the petition shall set forth the name of the
person claiming to be entitled to the office, with an averment of his
right thereto. Judgment may be rendered upon the right of the
defendant, and also on the right of the person averred to be so
entitled, or only upon the right of the defendant, as justice requires.
All persons who claim to be entitled to the same office or franchise
may be made defendants in one action, to try their respective rights
to such office or franchise.

Quo warranto is the sole remedy that may be employed to challenge the right of any

person to hold a public office. State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384 (2008); State

ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts, 133 Ohio St.3d 339 (2012), citing Sate ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson,

-11-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 131 Ohio St.3d 120 (2012). Quo warranto is used chiefly to question the authority of a claimant

asserting right and title to a public office. State ex rel. Price v. Columbus, Delaware & Marion

Elec. Co., 104 Ohio St.120 (1922).

In quo warranto, judgment may be rendered on the right of the defendant to hold the

contested office and the right of the person alleged to be entitled to hold the office “or only upon

the right of the defendant, as justice requires.” Deiter, supra at P22.

“Quo warrranto is employed to test the actual right to an office. However, before a party

is entitled to maintain an action in quo warranto, he must not only show this own right to the

office but also establish that another is actually holding office.” Parma v. Cleveland, 9 Ohio St.3d

109, 112 (1984), citing State ex rel. Mikus v. Chapla, 1 Ohio St.2d 174 (1965).

In this case, as has been shown, Respondent Morgan was named as Interim Mayor solely

for the time frame when Brandon King was suspended pursuant to O.R.C. 3.16. That statute

calls for the Interim Mayor’s tenure to end when the suspension ends and a vacancy in the public

office occurs. At that point, “a public official shall be appointed or elected to fill such vacancy as

provided by law.” O.R.C. 3.16(E)(5), emphasis added. “That law” is the East Cleveland Charter,

which states, at Section 114, that if the mayor is removed from office, the first in line of

succession is the President of City Council.

Respondent has no right or legal authority to continue to hold herself out as Interim

Mayor or Mayor. Her tenure ended on May 29, 2025 upon the guilty verdicts in the trial of

Brandon King. The City of East Cleveland cannot have two mayors. Only Relator Lateek

Shabazz has the right and authority, pursuant to the East Cleveland Charter, to be mayor.

-12-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 Peremptory or Alternative Writ

Once a petition for a writ of quo warranto is filed, along with a request for a peremptory

or alternative writ, the Court must make the following determinations:

Dismissal...is required if it appears beyond doubt, after presuming

the truth of all material factual allegations of relator’s complaint
and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, that relator is
not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in quo warranto,
State ex rel. Duke Energy, Ohio, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of
Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010).

If, however, after so construing the complaint, it appears

that relator’s quo warranto claim may have merit, we will grant an
alternative writ and issue a schedule for the presentation of
evidence and briefs. See State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 117
Ohio St.3d 1 (2007).

Finally, if the pertinent facts are uncontroverted and it

appears beyond doubt that relator is entitled to the requested
extraordinary relief in quo warranto, a peremptory writ will be
granted. See State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals,
118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008).

State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson, 131 Ohio St.3d 120 (2012) at

P 12-14.

In this case, Relator is asking for a peremptory writ; the fact are uncontroverted and it

should appear beyond doubt that Relator is entitled to hold the office of mayor pursuant to the

East Cleveland Charter and that Respondent is usurping that office. Moreover, the longer this

situation exists, with Respondent unlawfully holding herself out to be mayor, the more chaos and

confusion will exist. As indicated in Relator Shabazz’s affidavit, which is attached to the

Verified Petition and which is incorporated herein, even something as simple as holding a City

Council meeting and enacting legislation can be made impossible if it is not known for certain

-13-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 who is the mayor, who is the City Council President and who will replace Relator Shabazz as a

Council-member (assuming he is indeed deemed to be the mayor).

Thus, Relator has met the requirements for a peremptory writ and asks this Court to rule

as soon as possible.

In the alternative, Relator asks for an alternative writ and an expedited briefing schedule.

Either way, Relator asks this Court to expedite the process and to make a final

determination as soon as possible, so as to bring certainty to East Cleveland, which is caught in

legal limbo due to the criminal activity of former mayor Brandon King.

CONCLUSION

Brandon King was indefinitely suspended as Mayor of East Cleveland pursuant to O.R.C.

3.16. Upon his conviction, his suspension ended and he was removed from office. The authority

of O.R.C. 3.16 by which Respondent served as Interim Mayor ended at that point, and the

procedures for replacing a mayor who has been removed, set forth in the East Cleveland Charter,

must prevail. Relator Lateek Shabazz is the proper mayor, effective May 29, 2025, and

Respondent Sandra Morgan has no legal authority to hold herself out to be Interim Mayor or

Mayor as of that date. To the extent she still holds herself out to be Interim Mayor or Mayor and

remains in the office of the mayor and refuses to leave, she is usurping Relator’s authority.

An expeditious order from this Court declaring Relator to be the rightful mayor is

required to prevent the confusion and chaos of either having two mayors, or of potentially having

any orders or decisions made by Respondent be declared void or vacated. At this point, with

Respondent refusing to leave office, the City of East Cleveland and its residents are in a state of

-14-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT
 legal limbo.

Relator urges this Court to grant either a peremptory or alternative writ and a writ of quo

warranto, the effect of which will install Relator Lateek Shabazz as mayor.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Kenneth D. Myers
KENNETH D. MYERS [0053655]
6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 241-3900
(440) 498-8239 Fax
[email protected]

Counsel for Relator

Lateek Shabazz

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing has been sent via e-mail to: Respondent Sandra Morgan at

[email protected] on this 2nd day of June, 2025.

/s/Kenneth D. Myers
KENNETH D. MYERS

Counsel for Relator

Lateek Shabazz

-15-

Electronically Filed 06/02/2025 12:59 / MOTION / CA 25 115185 / Confirmation Nbr. 3512372 / CLSXT