DeWine v. Morgan
2017 Ohio 5600
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gregory B. Morgan sued The Ohio State University College of Dentistry (OSU Dental) for malpractice in a 2010 Court of Claims action; the jury found for OSU Dental and this court affirmed (Morgan I).
- After the initial loss, Morgan filed multiple subsequent actions challenging the same facts: another Court of Claims malpractice complaint, a Franklin County common pleas action against individual providers, later Court of Claims suits adding claims, an action against the Ohio Attorney General (OAG) alleging constitutional violations, and a federal suit — most were dismissed.
- OAG sought a declaratory judgment that Morgan is a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52; OAG moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for OAG, finding Morgan repeatedly filed frivolous, meritless actions that re-litigated issues resolved in Morgan I and otherwise lacked good-faith legal grounds.
- Morgan appealed, arguing the court improperly granted summary judgment, failed to consider credibility issues, and that unsubmitted evidence and motivations justified his filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OAG) | Defendant's Argument (Morgan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for OAG was proper | Record shows no genuine issue: Morgan habitually filed frivolous suits; evidence supports vexatious-litigant declaration | Summary judgment was improper because credibility issues and additional evidence (briefs, depositions) require trial | Affirmed: summary judgment proper; no genuine issues of material fact and OAG entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether Morgan’s post‑loss filings constituted "vexatious conduct" under R.C. 2323.52 | Morgan repeatedly filed meritless suits, reasserted claims rejected in Morgan I, and pursued frivolous pleadings and subpoenas | Filings were motivated by perceived due-process violations and attempts to change law, not harassment | Affirmed: conduct met statutory standard (habitual, persistent, without reasonable grounds; not warranted under existing law) |
| Whether some filings were justified as efforts to add claims or preserve statute of limitations | Many filings duplicated prior claims or were improper methods to raise new theories; specific pleadings (TRO request, subpoena of OSU president) were frivolous | Second and subsequent suits were necessary to add claims denied in the first action or to preserve limitations | Rejected: Court previously denied amendment (Morgan I); filing separate suits to raise those issues was frivolous and not proper recourse |
| Whether a vexatious‑litigator finding requires multiple separate actions | Not necessary; single-case conduct can suffice, and courts may consider other actions to assess pattern | Argued actions arose from single dispute and legitimate grievances | Court reiterated precedent: repetitive actions not required; focus is on nature of conduct, not count of suits; finding sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (standard for summary judgment)
- Sinnott v. Aqua‑Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary judgment principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden in Ohio summary‑judgment practice)
- Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St.3d 3 (2001) (purpose and scope of Ohio vexatious‑litigator statute)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984) (trial court's superiority in assessing witness credibility)
- Zurz v. 770 W. Broad AGA, LLC, 192 Ohio App.3d 521 (2011) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)