2011 Ohio 2428
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Harsh, pro se, sued City of Franklin, the law firm defendants, and their principals in 2010 for defamation, emotional distress, and related claims arising from prior federal litigation.
- In 2005, Harsh was arrested for felony DUI and related charges in Franklin; he was acquitted after a jury trial.
- In 2006, Harsh was convicted in Butler County on felony charges and remains incarcerated.
- Harsh previously filed a 2007 false arrest/malicious filing suit in Warren County; that action was removed to federal court.
- In 2010, the trial court dismissed Harsh’s current complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the appellate court reviews de novo.
- The court holds Harsh failed to plead any actionable claim; all assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defamation claims are privileged in litigation | Harsh asserts defaming statements harmed his reputation | Attorneys’ statements in court are absolutely privileged | Yes; statements in the course of litigation are absolutely privileged. |
| Whether Harsh stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Harsh contends defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous | Conduct was not extreme or outrageous beyond decency | No; complaint lacks extreme or outrageous conduct. |
| Whether other claims (fraud, civil conspiracy, malice) state a claim | Defendants engaged in civil conspiracy and fraudulent conduct | Claims fail for lack of underlying unlawful act and specificity | No; claims fail as pleaded; res judicata and lack of underlying tort. |
| Whether the complaint states a cognizable claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Harsh seeks relief for multiple theories | Complaint fails to allege facts entitling relief | Harsh failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matalka v. Lagemann, 21 Ohio App.3d 134 (1985) (defamation elements; privilege analysis for attorney statements)
- Simmons v. Climaco, 30 Ohio App.3d 225 (1986) (attorney absolute privilege for statements in litigation)
- Haynes v. Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth., 188 Ohio App.3d 337 (2010) (12(B)(6) standard; de novo review on dismissal)
- Celebrezze v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 41 Ohio App.3d 343 (1988) (elements of defamation; publication and fault)
- Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (1998) (civil conspiracy requires underlying unlawful act)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (1983) (intentional infliction of emotional distress standard)