Pietrangelo v. Lorain Cty. Printing & Publishing Co.
2017 Ohio 8783
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant James E. Pietrangelo, pro se attorney, sued multiple media outlets (The Chronicle-Telegram, The Press, Cleveland Scene), the City of Avon Lake, and police officers alleging defamation, false light, and constitutional violations arising from his dispute over a local skate park and related news coverage (2014 articles).
- The Chronicle-Telegram moved for summary judgment on all claims against it; the trial court granted summary judgment. Other defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted those motions as well.
- Pietrangelo challenged the summary-judgment ruling and argued the trial court improperly denied his Civ.R. 56(F) continuance request and various motions to strike and for leave; he also appealed the judgment-on-the-pleadings rulings against The Press, Cleveland Scene, and Avon Lake defendants.
- On appeal the Ninth District reviewed summary judgment de novo and rejected Pietrangelo’s arguments that the newspaper evidence was incompetent or that factual disputes precluded judgment; the court found the alleged statements were not defamatory per se and Pietrangelo failed to adequately develop many appellate arguments.
- The court also held Pietrangelo did not justify a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance (being "busy" was insufficient), and repeatedly concluded Pietrangelo’s briefs contained conclusory assertions without applying law to facts, so several assignments of error were not addressed on the merits and were overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether The Chronicle-Telegram was entitled to summary judgment on defamation/false-light claims | Pietrangelo: articles contained materially false statements and overall gist was defamatory; factual disputes exist and evidence submitted by paper was incompetent | Chronicle-Telegram: statements true or substantially true; protected opinion; innocent-construction rule; fair-report and other privileges; no requisite fault | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — statements not defamation per se; plaintiff failed to raise genuine material fact and did not develop false-light argument |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Civ.R. 56(F) continuance for discovery | Pietrangelo: needed more discovery and was occupied with other litigation so could not oppose summary judgment fully | Chronicle-Telegram: Pietrangelo had months to conduct discovery; being "busy" is not adequate | Court: Denial affirmed — Civ.R. 56(F) denial not an abuse; being busy insufficient to warrant continuance |
| Whether The Press and Cleveland Scene were entitled to judgment on the pleadings | Pietrangelo: pleaded sufficient facts; numerous statements actionable and defamatory per se; showed actual malice and lack of privilege | Defendants: articles were opinion/protected, not false or defamatory, and plaintiff failed to show actual malice or overcome privileges | Court: Affirmed judgments on the pleadings; did not reach merits in detail because Pietrangelo’s appellate arguments were conclusory and inadequately developed |
| Whether Avon Lake and officers were entitled to judgment on pleadings for defamation, false light, and constitutional claims | Pietrangelo: sufficiently pleaded defamation, false-light, and multiple constitutional violations including § 1983 claims | Avon Lake defendants: immune from defamation; statements not actionable; plaintiff failed to plead plausible constitutional violations | Court: Affirmed judgment on the pleadings; again declined to address merits because appellate briefing failed to apply law to facts adequately |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (elements for granting summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial burden and shifting burden framework in summary-judgment practice)
- Todd Dev. Co. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461 (2008) (nonmoving party must produce specific facts showing genuine issue to avoid summary judgment)
- Osborne v. Northeast Ohio Elite Gymnastics Training Ctr., Inc., 183 Ohio App.3d 104 (2009) (distinction between defamation per se and per quod)
- Gilbert v. WNIR 100 FM, 142 Ohio App.3d 725 (2001) (discussion of what constitutes defamation per se and moral turpitude)