Simpson v. Voiture Nationale La Societe Des Quarante Hommes
2021 Ohio 2131
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Charles Simpson, an Ohio-licensed attorney and officer/director of local nonprofit Voiture 34, sued Ohio Voiture (state org), Voiture Nationale (national org), and Brannon & Associates (law firm) alleging civil-rights violations, defamation, identity fraud, extortion, coercion, interference with civil rights, and civil recovery for criminal acts.
- Complaint filed May 2020; defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C).
- Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on Jan. 7, 2021: dismissed most claims with prejudice and dismissed the civil-recovery claim under R.C. 2307.60/2307.611 without prejudice.
- Trial court bases: lack of standing or legally cognizable claim, absolute litigation privilege for statements in judicial proceedings, defendants not acting under color of state law, and criminal statutes do not create private causes of action.
- Simpson appealed sole assignment of error that the court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity fraud (R.C. 2313.49) | Defendants used/held out Voiture 34's identifying information; Simpson alleges injury | Simpson lacks statutory or derivative standing; no allegation defendants used Simpson's personal info or that Simpson suffered compensable injury | Dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing/personal injury |
| Defamation | Statements that Simpson lacked authority to sue damaged his reputation and practice | Statements were made in judicial pleadings/proceedings and are absolutely privileged | Dismissed with prejudice (absolute litigation privilege) |
| §1983 / R.C. 2921.45 civil-rights claim | Defendants (and Brannon & Associates) acted under color of state law; attorneys are officers of the court | Organizations are private charities; private attorneys in state-court litigation are not state actors; R.C. 2921.45 does not create a private cause | Dismissed with prejudice (no state action; R.C. 2921.45 not privately enforceable) |
| Criminal statutes (extortion/coercion R.C. 2905.11/2905.12) | Criminal acts occurred and support civil claims | Criminal statutes generally do not create private civil causes of action | Dismissed with prejudice (no cognizable civil cause) |
| Civil recovery for criminal acts (R.C. 2307.60/2307.611) | Seeks damages for alleged criminal acts (identity fraud, coercion, extortion, interference) | Pleadings fail to allege sufficient facts showing injury/damages | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead sufficient facts (not appealable here) |
Key Cases Cited
- Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 1986) (establishes absolute privilege for statements reasonably related to judicial proceedings)
- Cammer v. United States, 350 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1956) (attorneys are not officers in the ordinary sense and are generally not state actors for §1983)
- Skolnick v. Martin, 317 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1963) (lawyers in private state-court litigation are not state functionaries acting under color of state law)
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (Ohio 1973) (motion for judgment on the pleadings is limited to the allegations and attachments to the pleadings)