2019 Ohio 1237
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In Sept–Oct 2009 Judge Nancy Russo reported repeated threatening/stalking incidents near her home; descriptions matched a white male. Her husband followed a suspect to a Lakewood apartment building.
- On Nov 14, 2009 Steven Stakich (appellee) was observed walking past Russo’s home singing loudly; Russo identified him as the possible stalker and her husband followed him to the apartment building.
- Deputy Vincent Scalmato (appellant) investigated, reviewed building security footage, and arrested another man (Hayes Rowan) briefly; building staff later identified Stakich on the footage for the relevant time.
- Scalmato interviewed Stakich (facts disputed as to entry), learned Stakich frequented Russo’s neighborhood and sang lyrics that could be construed as threatening, then arrested him; a city prosecutor initially declined to file charges.
- Scalmato later testified to a grand jury (as sole witness) recounting the investigations and Stakich’s admissions; the grand jury indicted Stakich, but the prosecutor subsequently dismissed the criminal charges in exchange for a civil protection order for Russo.
- Stakich sued Russo, Cuyahoga County, and Scalmato (individually) alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; the trial court denied Scalmato’s summary judgment claim of immunity and found genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputy Scalmato is immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) | Scalmato’s grand-jury testimony and investigative conduct contradicted CCSO records and was reckless/bad faith, defeating immunity | Scalmato acted within scope, performed governmental functions, and his conduct was not malicious, reckless, or in bad faith; absolute immunity for grand-jury testimony for claims based on that testimony | Court reversed trial court: Scalmato entitled to immunity; summary judgment for Scalmato granted |
| Malicious prosecution claim | Scamlato’s conduct and testimony led to indictment and were improper; issues of fact preclude summary judgment | Probable cause existed from investigation and testimony; prosecutor declined then grand jury later indicted based on evidence; no malicious intent | Moot after immunity ruling; appellate court disposed in favor of Scalmato by granting immunity |
| Abuse of process claim | Process (investigation, arrest, grand-jury) was abused to harass Stakich | Lawful investigative steps and grand-jury testimony were proper; no improper use of process | Moot after immunity ruling; appellate court treated as resolved by immunity decision |
| Intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress | Scalmato’s alleged assault entering apartment and conduct caused extreme emotional harm; raises factual disputes | Conduct was investigative, supported by identification and admissions; insufficient to show outrageousness or reckless indifference | Moot after immunity ruling; appellate court entered summary judgment for Scalmato on immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Govt. Risk Mgt. Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s burden in summary judgment practice)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (summary judgment/Civ.R.56 standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (definition of "material fact" and summary judgment standard)
- Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598 (materiality depends on substantive law)
- Argabrite v. Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349 (immunity fact questions)
- Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80 (definition of bad faith)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definitions of wanton and reckless conduct)