King v. Semi Valley Sound, L.L.C.
2011 Ohio 3567
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Derrick King published alleged false light/privacy and defamation claims after Busted magazine labeled him a local registered sex offender.
- King previously was a sex offender required to register until 2007; his registration was extended to 2012 by the Adam Walsh Act, then terminated by Bodyke (2010).
- King alleged the Summit County Sheriff's site showed his entry as stayed by court and that Bodyke terminated his registration obligations.
- Busted magazine featured King under 'Local Registered Sexual Offenders' with his photo and information.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); King amended the complaint by removing some defendants and adding others without leave, while motions were pending.
- The trial court dismissed both the invasion of privacy and defamation claims; King appeals partial reversal on privacy but upholds dismissal of defamation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does King's false light claim survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion? | King can prove false light with publication of name/address/photo in a false light. | Publication was not highly offensive to a reasonable person. | Yes; false light claim survives. |
| Is the defamation claim viable where publication labeled him as a 'registered' sex offender? | Being labeled 'registered' is defamatory per se given stigma. | No special damages and per se falsehood not established; not defamatory beyond being a sex offender. | No; defamation claim cannot proceed. |
| Was the truth/falsity of the statements properly addressed, given Bodyke and related facts? | Truth should be considered; factual disputes exist. | Issues moot after rulings on false light and defamation; not necessary to decide truth. | Moot; not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (2007) (adopts Restatement §652E false light standard; highly offensive to a reasonable person)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (precedes dismissal standard: can survive if any set of facts could warrant recovery)
- York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 60 Ohio St.3d 143 (1991) (pleading standard; notice pleading sufficiency at dismissal stage)
- Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195 (1996) (defamation per se framework; per se vs per quod distinction)
- Ne. Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr. Inc. v. Osborne, 183 Ohio App.3d 104 (2009) (defamation claim viability; requires showing of damages or per se facts)
- State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey County Bd. of Comm’rs, 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992) (motion practice and amendment timing; informal pleading rules)
- State v. Bodyke, 2010-Ohio-2424 (2010) (termination of sex offender registration; interpretive effect on cases)