Stainbrook v. Ohio Secy. of State
2017 Ohio 1526
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Jon Stainbrook was a member of the Lucas County Board of Elections, reappointed in 2014, who complained about alleged legal violations by board members and staff.
- The Ohio Secretary of State (Husted) convened a multi-member "Transparency Committee," which held public meetings and recommended Stainbrook's removal; Husted removed him after a seven-hour hearing and sent a removal letter dated June 5, 2014.
- Stainbrook filed suit in the Ohio Court of Claims on June 5, 2015 asserting defamation, false light invasion of privacy, wrongful termination, denial of due process, and civil conspiracy (and related claims) against Husted and other politically active individuals.
- The Court of Claims granted the Secretary’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6), finding most alleged defamatory and false-light acts occurred before June 5, 2014 and thus were time-barred; the June 5 letter was protected by qualified privilege absent well-pled actual malice.
- The appellate court reviewed dismissal de novo (statute-of-limitations and pleading sufficiency) and affirmed: defamation and false-light claims subject to one-year limitations; June 5 letter not pled as false or made with actual malice; wrongful termination not pleaded; Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional due-process claims; conspiracy claim fails for lack of timely underlying unlawful act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged defamation after June 5, 2014 was timely | Stainbrook alleged continuing publicity and escalation after removal | Defendant argued the alleged defamatory publications occurred before June 5, 2014 and were time-barred | Claims based on publications before June 5, 2014 are barred by the one-year statute; complaint did not plead defamatory statements after that date |
| Whether the June 5, 2014 removal letter was defamatory | Stainbrook contended Husted’s June 5 letter was defamatory and actionable | Husted asserted the letter was a privileged communication made in discharge of official duty; plaintiff failed to plead actual malice | Letter was privileged; complaint failed to allege falsity or actual malice, so no actionable defamation |
| Whether false-light claim survived dismissal | Stainbrook argued false-light has longer statute of limitations (2 or 4 years) and is separate from defamation | Defendant argued false-light overlaps defamation and thus is subject to the one-year defamation limitations period and privilege defenses | False-light claims arising from same facts as defamation are governed by the one-year statute; plaintiff failed to plead actionable conduct within that year or actual malice regarding the June 5 letter |
| Whether Court of Claims had jurisdiction over constitutional/due-process claim | Stainbrook asserted denial of due process by state actors | Defendant argued Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims (these belong in common pleas or §1983) | Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional due-process claims; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (2007) (adopts Ohio false-light tort and recognizes extensive overlap and defendant protections comparable to defamation)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (1975) (recognizes qualified privilege for communications made in discharge of public or private duty)
- Jacobs v. Frank, 60 Ohio St.3d 111 (1991) (qualified privilege can be defeated only by clear and convincing proof of actual malice)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) appropriate only when no set of facts would entitle plaintiff to relief)
- Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc., 69 Ohio St.2d 376 (1982) (statute-of-limitations bar may be grounds for dismissal when complaint conclusively shows the claim is time-barred)
- Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co., 40 Ohio St.2d 55 (1974) (statute-of-limitations is an affirmative defense but may be considered on 12(B)(6) when the complaint facially shows the bar)