2018 Ohio 3952
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Jeffrey Lansky, longtime Maple Heights mayor, sued William and Lynde Brownlee (publishers of MapleHeightsNews.org) for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from a July 17, 2014 blog post that attributed various municipal service reductions to Lansky.
- Lansky’s counsel Brent L. English sent demand letters; the Brownlees made strike-through corrections on the website and posted a correction notice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Brownlees, finding the statements were not shown false as a matter of law, corrections were reasonable, and Lansky (a public figure) failed to prove actual malice or damages.
- The Brownlees sought sanctions (R.C. 2323.51 and Civ.R. 11); the trial court awarded sanctions and modest attorney-fee amounts ($2,000 to lead counsel, $5,000 to local counsel), expenses, and a $75 counterclaim fee, jointly and severally against Lansky and English.
- English appealed the sanctions; the Brownlees cross-appealed the amount of fees. The court of appeals affirmed both the sanctions and the trial court’s exercise of discretion in setting the fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lansky/English) | Defendant's Argument (Brownlee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit and related conduct constituted frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51 | English argued the suit was non-frivolous; sanctions inappropriate | Brownlees argued the suit was objectively frivolous and egregious given lack of falsity, damages, or actual malice | Court: No abuse of discretion in sanctioning under R.C. 2323.51; objective standard met given evidence and law |
| Whether English violated Civ.R. 11 | English contended he reasonably believed claims had merit | Brownlees contended English willfully signed pleadings lacking good-faith basis | Court: Civ.R. 11 sanctions affirmed; court found willfulness or failure to meet rule’s requirements under abuse-of-discretion review |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in quantum of fee award on cross-appeal | Brownlees argued trial court should apply lodestar and award full requested fees (over $100k) | English argued pro bono nature and trial court discretion to limit fees | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; lodestar not mandatory for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51/Civ.R.11 and modest awards were reasonable given the simple issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Striker v. Cline, 130 Ohio St.3d 214 (Ohio 2011) (defines objective standard for frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51)
- State ex rel. DiFranco v. South Euclid, 144 Ohio St.3d 571 (Ohio 2015) (discusses frivolous-conduct standards and R.C. 2323.51)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366 (Ohio 2012) (elements of defamation under Ohio law)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard background)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (reckless disregard/actual malice standard)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (lodestar and attorney-fee reasonableness factors)