594 F. App'x 864
6th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff John Ohnemus, president of AirFoil Aerial Systems, sold a drone to Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department; the thermal camera (FLIR) was not delivered and the department refused the camera.
- Deputy Sheriff Travis Thompson swore a criminal complaint alleging theft by failure to make required disposition of property; Ohnemus was arrested, posted an $80,000 bond, and charged by warrant.
- Criminal charges were dismissed after Ohnemus paid $22,980 restitution to the Pulaski County Sheriff; the district court’s dismissal order recited payment in exchange for dismissal with prejudice.
- Ohnemus sued Thompson for malicious prosecution and defamation per se under Kentucky law; Thompson moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed both claims; the Sixth Circuit majority affirmed, concluding (1) the criminal proceeding did not terminate in Ohnemus’s favor because the dismissal followed a compromise (payment of restitution), and (2) statements in the sworn complaint are absolutely privileged, barring the defamation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal proceeding terminated in plaintiff's favor for malicious prosecution | Ohnemus: dismissal was not a compromise undermining favorability; court must scrutinize circumstances (citing Rumery/Coughlen) | Thompson: dismissal followed a compromise — Ohnemus paid restitution — so termination was not favorable | Court: Dismissal was a compromise (payment of restitution) and therefore not a favorable termination; malicious prosecution claim fails |
| Whether payment of restitution bars a favorable-termination finding | Ohnemus: restitution language may be misnamed / obtained unfairly; facts should be developed | Thompson: payment is dispositive and reflected in public record; no discovery needed | Court: Payment constitutes compromise; ends claim against malicious prosecution element requiring favorable termination |
| Whether statements in the sworn criminal complaint are actionable defamation per se | Ohnemus: Thompson’s filings and republication by media damaged reputation; alleges republication to press | Thompson: Judicial pleadings are absolutely privileged; republication by media does not strip privilege | Court: Statements in judicial pleadings are absolutely privileged even if republished; defamation claim dismissed |
| Whether the motion should have been converted to summary judgment / discovery permitted | Ohnemus: court should have allowed discovery to probe dismissal circumstances and possible misconduct | Thompson: dismissal order is a public record central to claim; conversion unnecessary | Court: Proper to decide under Rule 12(b)(6); no need for conversion or discovery because the dismissal order foreclosed favorable-termination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987) (release-dismissal agreements must be evaluated for voluntariness and enforceability)
- Coughlen v. Coots, 5 F.3d 970 (6th Cir. 1993) (factors for enforcing release-dismissal agreements in § 1983 context)
- Raine v. Drasin, 621 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. 1981) (elements of malicious prosecution; tort disfavored)
- Broaddus v. Campbell, 911 S.W.2d 281 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995) (dismissal following stipulation/probable-cause admission is not favorable termination)
- Heavrin v. Nelson, 384 F.3d 199 (6th Cir. 2004) (statements in judicial pleadings are absolutely privileged)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (policy reasons for requiring favorable termination to avoid conflicting outcomes)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))