2013 Ohio 5587
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Pamela and Earl Ghaster sued the City of Rocky River, retired Police Chief Donald Wagner, retired Detective Carl Gulas, the City Law Director Andrew Bemer, and the City Prosecutor Michael O’Shea alleging a conspiracy to force the Ghasters to move by bringing and abusing criminal process and disclosing private information. The complaint refiled state-law claims after a prior federal suit was dismissed without prejudice.
- Pam Ghaster faced multiple municipal criminal prosecutions in 2007 (intimidation/obstructing official business; false alarm/disorderly conduct; menacing by stalking); some charges were dismissed, others resulted in convictions that were later affirmed on appeal.
- The complaint alleged: public disclosure of Pam’s social security numbers and CI status; wrongful inspection of her medical records and cell phone; efforts to persuade defense witnesses not to testify; failure to investigate vandalism and witness intimidation; and coordination with neighbors to drive plaintiffs from the community.
- Plaintiffs pleaded claims for invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
- The trial court granted defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion in part (dismissing malicious prosecution, abuse of process, IIED counts and dismissing Bemer and O’Shea based on prosecutorial/law director immunity) and later granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on the invasion-of-privacy and civil-conspiracy claims based on political-subdivision and employee immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
- On appeal, this court affirmed summary judgment (immunity) but reversed dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as premature because the complaint did not conclusively show the one-year limitations period had run.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malicious prosecution claim was time-barred | Ghaster: complaint alleged charges were dismissed but did not state dismissal dates; therefore statute of limitations may not have run | Defendants: docket shows dismissals in 2008 so one-year statute expired before 2011 filing | Reversed dismissal — complaint did not conclusively show claim was time-barred; Civ.R.12(B)(6) dismissal premature |
| Whether law director and prosecutor (Bemer, O’Shea) are immune | Ghaster: some alleged actions (persuading witnesses, failing to investigate, email "put a lid on this") fall outside absolute immunity | Bemer/O’Shea: their actions were part of prosecutorial advocacy and thus absolutely immune | Affirmed dismissal — their actions were within advocacy function; absolute immunity applies |
| Whether City and officers are liable for invasion of privacy under Ohio Privacy Act or for civil conspiracy | Ghaster: R.C. 1347.10 and related statutes impose civil liability and remove political-subdivision immunity; factual disputes exist about disclosure/publication and offensiveness | Defendants: R.C. 2744 grants political-subdivision immunity; the cited statutes do not expressly impose civil liability on political subdivisions; plaintiffs produced no evidence of public dissemination or resulting harm; individual defendants lacked malice/bad faith | Affirmed summary judgment — political-subdivision immunity applies; exceptions not shown; invasion-of-privacy and conspiracy claims fail |
| Whether individual officers (Wagner, Gulas) lose immunity for malice/bad faith | Ghaster: supervisory roles and alleged coordination with neighbors show malice/bad faith and actions outside scope of employment | Defendants: no evidence they acted maliciously, outside scope, or participated in disclosures; only speculation | Affirmed summary judgment — plaintiffs produced no evidence of malice, bad faith, or actions outside employment; qualified immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity for advocacy functions)
- Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447 (absolute immunity does not cover investigative/administrative prosecutorial acts)
- Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 114 Ohio St.3d 286 (elements and accrual rules for malicious prosecution)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (publicity element in invasion-of-privacy claims)
- Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (civil conspiracy requires underlying unlawful act)
- Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266 (employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6))
- Elston v. Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314 (three-tiered R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)