2020 Ohio 1346
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Nov. 16, 2017 the Ohio Attorney General sued Kevin Ra and related entities and the AG posted a news release online summarizing allegations that Ra used nonprofits for personal benefit.
- The parties settled the suit on Jan. 29, 2018; the settlement included mutual releases of claims related to the AG’s investigation/litigation and reserved enforcement/jurisdiction in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; the agreement said nothing about the news release.
- Plaintiffs learned the release remained on the AG website, asked for its removal in Feb. 2018, and allege the AG refused and then employed SEO/snippet techniques so searches of Ra’s name or email continued to surface the release.
- In Feb. 2019 plaintiffs (Ra, Vista, PRC) sued in the Court of Claims asserting breach of contract and implied covenant claims (tied to the settlement), and tort claims: negligence, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking large damages.
- The Court of Claims converted the AG’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, dismissed the contract/declaratory claims under the settlement’s forum/waiver provisions, and granted summary judgment for the AG on the tort claims as disguised defamation subject to an absolute privilege.
- The appellate court affirmed: plaintiffs’ tort claims were essentially defamation-based ("disguised defamation"), untimely under Ohio’s one-year defamation statute, and thus summary judgment for the AG was proper (privilege ruling was unnecessary to the result).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence/tortious-interference/IIED claims are "disguised defamation" | Claims arise from post-settlement conduct (failure to remove/update release; SEO/snippets) distinct from mere publication | All tort claims are premised on the allegedly false news release; their essential character is defamation | The tort claims are disguised defamation — the predominant subject is reputational harm from the release |
| Whether the AG has absolute privilege for the publication | AG’s continued publication and SEO are wrongful and not protected post-settlement | AG enjoys absolute privilege for publications made in the performance of official duties | Court assumed privilege arguable but found ruling unnecessary because claims were untimely; privilege was offered by trial court as a ground but appellate decision rests on timeliness/disguise rationale |
| Whether plaintiff’s tort claims are time‑barred under defamation statute | Post-publication conduct created a new actionable harm with longer statutes of limitations | Defamation statute of limitations (one year) runs from first publication; republication via SEO/snippets without content change does not restart the clock | The disguised-defamation theory implicates the one‑year defamation limitation; plaintiffs filed after one year from original publication, so claims are untimely |
| Whether the settlement/waiver or forum provisions bar plaintiffs’ contract/declaratory claims | Settlement did not address the news release; plaintiffs can still pursue contract/good‑faith claims | Settlement included broad release and reserved enforcement jurisdiction in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas | Contract and declaratory claims dismissed because the settlement reserved jurisdiction in the Cuyahoga Court to enforce the agreement (trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328 (2008) (defamation defined; elements and nature of reputational torts)
- A & B‑Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (1995) (authoritative definition and discussion of defamation harm)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (summary judgment standard in Ohio)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden and nonmoving party’s response on summary judgment)
- Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A., 83 Ohio App.3d 103 (10th Dist. 1992) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (9th Dist. 1995) (affirmance allowed if any ground supports trial court judgment)
- T.S. v. Plain Dealer, 194 Ohio App.3d 30 (8th Dist. 2011) (internet republishing without content change does not restart defamation statute of limitations)