539 F.Supp.3d 794
N.D. Ohio2021Background
- Gary Brack was MetroHealth’s interim director of nursing at the Cuyahoga County jail and testified at a May 22, 2018 County Council Public Safety Committee hearing criticizing County conduct and Ken Mills’s role in jail healthcare problems.
- The day after the hearing, County Executive Armond Budish and Earl Leiken (then Chief of Staff) met with MetroHealth leadership and, according to the complaint, demanded Brack’s removal; Brack was placed on administrative leave May 25, 2018 and formally terminated August 29, 2018.
- Brack sued, asserting 12 claims, including §1983 claims (conspiracy and First Amendment retaliation) and multiple state-law civil claims based on Ohio Rev. Code §2307.60 (civil remedies for criminal acts). He named Leiken in his individual capacity.
- Leiken moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the state-law claims against him (Claims 6–12). The court treated the motion under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
- The court held that Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations applies to §2307.60 claims, found Claims 6–11 against Leiken time‑barred because they were asserted in an amended complaint filed after the one‑year period, declined to certify the statute‑of‑limitations question to the Ohio Supreme Court, and deemed Claim 12 abandoned for failure to oppose.
- The motion was GRANTED as to Claims 6–12 against Leiken; Claims 1 and 2 (the §1983 claims) remain pending against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper statute of limitations for Ohio Rev. Code §2307.60 claims | §2307.60 creates a civil remedy; six‑year (§2305.07) or four‑year (§2305.09) period should apply; Rosette and Jacobson support non‑penal characterization | One‑year limitations period under §2305.11(A) applies because statute is penal/forfeiture‑like; uniform lower‑court authority supports one year | Court predicts Ohio Supreme Court would apply one‑year limitations; §2307.60 claims time‑barred |
| Timeliness of claims against Leiken added in amended complaint | (Implicit) claims should survive; plaintiff did not assert relation‑back | Claims against Leiken were added in amended complaint filed Feb 26, 2020, beyond one‑year from termination Aug 29, 2018 | Because plaintiff did not plead relation back or otherwise rebut untimeliness, claims 6–11 against Leiken are dismissed |
| Whether to certify the limitations question to the Ohio Supreme Court | If court finds ambiguity, it should certify the question | No certification necessary: uniform lower‑court precedent, would delay case, and question not dispositive of the whole case | Court declines certification for reasons of uniform precedent, delay, and lack of case‑wide determinative effect |
| Claim 12 (civil conspiracy to wrongfully terminate) | Alleged Leiken maliciously conspired to cause Brack’s wrongful termination | Leiken moved for judgment on pleadings; plaintiff failed to respond | Plaintiff abandoned Claim 12 by not opposing; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise plausible entitlement to relief)
- Anders v. Cuevas, 984 F.3d 1166 (6th Cir. 2021) (Rule 12(c) treated like 12(b)(6))
- Darby v. Childvine, Inc., 964 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2020) (plausibility measured against elements of claim)
- Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 825 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio 2005) (statutory text can drive penal vs. remedial limitations analysis)
- Jacobson v. Kaforey, 75 N.E.3d 203 (Ohio 2016) (§2307.60 creates a civil cause of action for damages)