Jordan v. Giant Eagle Supermarket
2020 Ohio 5622
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Lu Jordan sued Giant Eagle over two in-store detentions: Oct. 15, 2016 (police responded after store employees called) and May 15, 2018 (store security detained her).
- Jordan previously filed a 2017 suit that included the South Euclid police; that case was dismissed after she failed to amend as ordered, and she voluntarily dismissed Giant Eagle before refiling.
- In April 2019 Jordan filed a new complaint naming only Giant Eagle (and John Doe entities/employees), asserting false imprisonment, breach of contract (based on a "Treat Card"), constitutional violations, and discrimination.
- Giant Eagle moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C) (and alternative motions), arguing Jordan’s complaint was vague, conclusory, failed to join necessary parties, and failed to state claims.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissing all claims: false imprisonment (no factual allegation that Giant Eagle employees confined her, used force/threats, or instigated arrest), breach of contract (no pleaded breach despite Treat Card allegation), constitutional claim (defendants are private actors), and discrimination (bare legal conclusion).
- Jordan appealed only the false imprisonment ruling; the Eighth District affirmed the dismissal of all claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | Giant Eagle's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False imprisonment (2016 & 2018 incidents) | Jordan contends she and her child were unlawfully detained and that Giant Eagle employees called police/instigated detention, making Giant Eagle liable | Complaint is vague; Jordan did not plead that Giant Eagle employees confined her, used force/threats, instigated or effectuated the arrest/detention, or that detention was by store employees | Affirmed: dismissal. Complaint fails to allege confinement by Giant Eagle or force/threats or that employees induced the arrest; Jordan can prove no set of facts entitling relief |
| Breach of contract (Treat Card) | Jordan claims contractual right to possession of the item via a Treat Card, so Giant Eagle breached | Complaint failed to attach the Treat Card and did not plead how Giant Eagle violated its terms | Affirmed: dismissal. While failure to attach a written instrument alone is not automatic dismissal, Jordan failed to allege any breach of contract facts |
| Constitutional deprivation | Jordan asserts deprivation of rights during the 2016 detention | Giant Eagle is a private actor; constitutional claims require state action and the officers alleged to be state actors were not defendants here | Affirmed: dismissal. No viable constitutional claim against private defendants absent state action |
| Discrimination (age, race, sex) | Jordan alleges age, race, and sex discrimination | Allegations are conclusory; no supporting factual allegations were pleaded | Affirmed: dismissal. Bare legal conclusions unsupported by facts are insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 60 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1991) (definition and elements of false imprisonment)
- Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1991) (pleading standards: accept complaint allegations as true for 12(C)/(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Pirman v. Money, 69 Ohio St.3d 591 (Ohio 1994) (Civ.R.12(C) treated as belated 12(B)(6))
- York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (notice-pleading: complaint survives if any set of facts consistent with it would allow recovery)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (Ohio 1988) (bare legal conclusions are not admitted on motion to dismiss)
- Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2008) (failure to attach written instrument under Civ.R.10(D) is not necessarily fatal; proper remedy may be a motion for more definite statement)
- Illinois Controls v. Langham, 70 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 1994) (plaintiff need not plead the precise legal theory if facts supporting relief are alleged)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (constitutional protections require state action; private conduct generally not covered)