1:24-cv-00308
S.D. OhioApr 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (HOME, Sophia Smith, and Demeirakle Carter) allege discriminatory housing practices by Defendants Count X LLC and its agent Taylor, related to Section 8 properties in Cincinnati.
- Smith, a tenant, claims persistent harassment, discrimination, and inadequate repairs by Defendants, prompting her to seek assistance from HOME, which filed complaints with HUD.
- Defendants deny any wrongdoing and assert two counterclaims: (1) tortious interference with a business relationship (HOME and CMHA), and (2) defamation by all Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Defendants' counterclaims for failure to state a claim; Defendants did not respond.
- The Court analyzed the sufficiency of the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6), taking Defendants’ factual allegations as true only for analyzing the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with business relationship | Defendants failed to allege facts showing intentional/improper interference or damages | HOME intentionally interfered with contracts between Count X and CMHA, harming business interests | Dismissed: Insufficient facts to show intentional misconduct or damages |
| Defamation | No actionable statement; absolute litigation privilege applies; statements not specifically alleged | Plaintiffs made false public accusations of discrimination harming Defendants’ reputation | Dismissed: No specific statements, publication, or facts pled; claim inadequately pleaded |
| Waiver of opposition by failing to respond | Silence constitutes waiver of opposition under local rules | No response filed | Motion deemed unopposed; dismissal granted |
| Leave to amend | Dismissal should be without prejudice to allow amendment if curable | — | Dismissal without prejudice; 30 days to seek amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires factual allegations above speculative level for claim to survive motion to dismiss)
- Hecht v. Levin, 613 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 1993) (absolute privilege applies to statements made in judicial proceedings)