2023 Ohio 884
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Redding was a USPA member from March 31, 2004 through June 30, 2021; he applied to renew on July 2, 2021 and USPA declined to renew via procedures applicable to non‑members.
- Redding sued USPA, two USPA officials, AerOhio Skydiving Center, and Cleveland Skydiving Center asserting breach of contract (relying on the USPA Governance Manual), negligence, statutory claims (R.C. 1729.24, Sarbanes‑Oxley, R.C. 4113.52), tortious interference, breach of implied good faith, and seeking injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court converted to a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Civ.R. 12(C)) and dismissed the complaint in full.
- On appeal the court upheld dismissal of Counts I–VI and Count VIII (contract, negligence, R.C. 1729.24, Sarbanes‑Oxley, tortious interference, implied covenant, and injunctive relief) but reversed and remanded Count VII (R.C. 4113.52 whistleblower) as to Cleveland Skydiving Center only.
- The court’s dispositive legal findings: Redding was a non‑member when renewal was denied so no enforceable membership contract existed; federal Sarbanes‑Oxley protection requires an employer–employee relationship; R.C. 4113.52 pleadings against Cleveland Skydiving Center survived the pleadings stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the USPA Governance Manual created an enforceable contract with Redding | Manual is part of membership contracts and Redding was a member whose membership was effectively revoked | Redding was a non‑member when renewal was denied; offer to renew was rejected and no contract existed | No contract as a matter of law; dismissal affirmed on contract claim |
| Whether defendants committed fraud / Civ.R. 60(B) misconduct by misrepresentations in their motion and exhibits | Defendants made fraudulent/misleading statements and criminally actionable deceptions that deprived Redding of rights | Claims based on Civ.R. 60(B) and criminal statutes were not raised below, are inapplicable, and lacking in merit | Forfeited or baseless; no plain error; fraud/Civ.R.60(B)/criminal claims rejected |
| Whether Redding stated a Sarbanes‑Oxley whistleblower claim | Redding was retaliated against for FAA complaints and is a SOX whistleblower | SOX protections require an employer‑employee relationship and prima facie elements unmet | SOX claim dismissed for failure to allege employment relationship |
| Whether R.C. 4113.52 whistleblower claim survives | Redding alleges employer retaliation (loss of employment/opportunities) after reporting to FAA | Defendants argue Redding failed to plead required employer notice and/or employee status | Reversed and remanded as to Cleveland Skydiving Center (pleading sufficient); affirmed as to other defendants |
| Whether injunctive relief (restoration of membership) is available | Redding seeks mandatory injunction restoring USPA membership to avoid irreparable harm | Defendants argue no likelihood of success, no irreparable harm, and some defendants lack authority to reinstate membership | Dismissed: no basis at pleading stage to grant mandatory injunctive relief against defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil cases is limited to exceptional circumstances affecting the integrity of the judicial process)
- State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (Ohio 1996) (standards for Civ.R. 12(C) and that courts may consider complaint and answer)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 1989) (elements of negligence and judicial role in determining duty)
- Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 (Ohio 2018) (no independent cause of action for breach of implied covenant absent an underlying contract)
- Contreras v. Ferro Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio 1995) (R.C. 4113.52 requires employers be given oral and written notice before outside reporting receives statutory protection)
- Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) (elements to establish a prima facie Sarbanes‑Oxley whistleblower claim)
- Klepsky v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 489 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for showing causation and adverse employment action in whistleblower claims)